Motus v. Pfizer Inc.
United States District Court for the Central District of California
196 F. Supp. 2d 984 (2001)
Victor Motus's physician, Dr. Trostler, prescribed him the antidepressant Zoloft using a Pfizer (defendant) sample packet that contained no warnings, and although a separate insert warning about suicide risk may have accompanied the samples, Trostler could not recall for certain and never read any Pfizer warnings before prescribing; Trostler prescribed based on his own experience and journal articles, was generally aware of higher suicide-risk studies for similar antidepressants but discounted them, and was never informed Motus was experiencing adverse reactions during the six days he took Zoloft before committing suicide. Motus's widow (plaintiff) sued Pfizer for failure to adequately warn, but at Trostler's deposition she never asked whether a specific suicide-risk warning would have changed his treatment decision, and Pfizer moved for summary judgment.
Whether, to prove that a prescription drug's inadequate warning caused injury under California law, the plaintiff must show that an adequate warning would have caused the prescribing doctor to treat the patient differently.