In the Superior Court of Pennsylvania - How Appealing
In the Superior Court of Pennsylvania - How Appealing In the Superior Court of Pennsylvania - How Appealing
In the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania No. 689 EAL 2010 CAROL J. HESS, Respondent, v. WYETH PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., et al., Petitioner. RESPONDENT’S ANSWER IN OPPOSITION TO THE PETITION FOR ALLOWANCE OF APPEAL On Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Judgment of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania at No. 594 EDA 2008, filed August 30, 2010, Reversing the Judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania, Civil Trial Division, June Term, 2004, No. 3973 entered January 10, 2008 Howard J. Bashman 2300 Computer Avenue Suite G–22 Willow Grove, PA 19090 (215) 830–1458 Counsel for Respondent Carol J. Hess Brian D. Ketterer John J. Cord, Jr. Robert K. Jenner Janet, Jenner & Suggs, L.L.C. 1829 Reisterstown Road, Suite 320 Baltimore, MD 21208 (410) 653–3200
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 1 II. COUNTER–STATEMENT OF THE CASE ....................................................... 4 A. The medications and their warnings ....................................................... 4 B. Publication of the Women’s Health Initiative (“WHI”) results .............. 8 C. The relevant facts and procedural history of these consolidated cases ........................................................................................................ 10 III. THE PETITION FOR ALLOWANCE OF APPEAL SHOULD BE DENIED ............................................................................................................ 22 A. The Superior Court Correctly Applied Well–Established Pennsylvania Law In Holding That Applicability Of The “Discovery Rule” To Toll The Running Of The Statute of Limitations Should Ordinarily Be Determined By A Jury ................... 22 B. Defendants Misapprehend Pennsylvania Law In Arguing That A Plaintiff Must Investigate The Cause Of Her Injury Even In The Absence Of Any Reasonable Basis For Concluding That The Injury Resulted From A Third–Party’s Wrongful Conduct .................. 36 IV. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................. 44
- Page 1 and 2: In the Supreme Court of Pennsylvani
- Page 3 and 4: In the Supreme Court of Pennsylvani
- Page 5 and 6: In the Supreme Court of Pennsylvani
- Page 7 and 8: In the Supreme Court of Pennsylvani
- Page 9 and 10: In the Supreme Court of Pennsylvani
- Page 11 and 12: In the Supreme Court of Pennsylvani
- Page 13: In the Supreme Court of Pennsylvani
- Page 17 and 18: Simon v. Wyeth Pharm., Inc., 989 A.
- Page 19 and 20: ule issue in these 14 cases as a ma
- Page 21 and 22: II. COUNTER-STATEMENT OF THE CASE A
- Page 23 and 24: Attachments to Pa. Super. Ct. Brief
- Page 25 and 26: products. R.1678a, 1682a. It is not
- Page 27 and 28: The results of the WHI received wid
- Page 29 and 30: By affidavit, Mrs. Manalo explained
- Page 31 and 32: with physicians about breast cancer
- Page 33 and 34: fact sheets that they had discussed
- Page 35 and 36: Q: Well, when I asked the first que
- Page 37 and 38: east cancer but less than two years
- Page 39 and 40: would have necessarily decided that
- Page 41 and 42: which this Court has described as
- Page 43 and 44: And, although “there are [very] f
- Page 45 and 46: to sue had expired, that her surgeo
- Page 47 and 48: articles per day nationwide. Larger
- Page 49 and 50: • A clinical trial of combination
- Page 51 and 52: Moreover, the Superior Court’s re
- Page 53 and 54: summary judgment in these 14 appeal
- Page 55 and 56: Defendants’ argument appears to b
- Page 57 and 58: demonstrating that the Superior Cou
- Page 59 and 60: Pennsylvania law concerning limitat
- Page 61 and 62: IV. CONCLUSION be denied. For the r
- Page 63: CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby cer
TABLE OF CONTENTS<br />
Page<br />
I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 1<br />
II. COUNTER–STATEMENT OF THE CASE ....................................................... 4<br />
A. The medications and <strong>the</strong>ir warnings ....................................................... 4<br />
B. Publication <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Women’s Health <strong>In</strong>itiative (“WHI”) results .............. 8<br />
C. The relevant facts and procedural history <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se consolidated<br />
cases ........................................................................................................ 10<br />
III. THE PETITION FOR ALLOWANCE OF APPEAL SHOULD BE<br />
DENIED ............................................................................................................ 22<br />
A. The <strong>Superior</strong> <strong>Court</strong> Correctly Applied Well–Established<br />
<strong>Pennsylvania</strong> Law <strong>In</strong> Holding That Applicability Of The<br />
“Discovery Rule” To Toll The Running Of The Statute <strong>of</strong><br />
Limitations Should Ordinarily Be Determined By A Jury ................... 22<br />
B. Defendants Misapprehend <strong>Pennsylvania</strong> Law <strong>In</strong> Arguing That A<br />
Plaintiff Must <strong>In</strong>vestigate The Cause Of Her <strong>In</strong>jury Even <strong>In</strong> The<br />
Absence Of Any Reasonable Basis For Concluding That The<br />
<strong>In</strong>jury Resulted From A Third–Party’s Wrongful Conduct .................. 36<br />
IV. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................. 44
Change language