In the Superior Court of Pennsylvania - How Appealing

which a reliable causal connection between E+P and breast cancer became known to
them, to the medical community, and to general public.
Judge Tereshko granted summary judgment in favor of defendants in all 14
of these cases, holding that plaintiffs’ claims were time–barred due to expiration of
the applicable two–year statute of limitations. He concluded that plaintiffs had
known or reasonably should have known that E+P had caused their breast cancer
immediately upon being diagnosed with that disease. In his view, the discovery rule
did not and could not toll the start of the two–year limitations period in any of these
cases.
In 13 of the cases (all but Coleman), the trial court granted summary
judgment in the absence of any discovery whatsoever, based solely on the plaintiff’s
complaint and associated “fact sheet,” consisting of written responses to a court–
approved written questionnaire. In many of those cases, the plaintiffs submitted
affidavits in response to the summary judgment motions to provide further factual
support for their invocation of the discovery rule to make their lawsuits timely.
The specific facts and procedural history of the 14 cases are set forth below:
Manalo
Plaintiff Graciana Manalo was diagnosed with breast cancer in November
2000. R.2967a. She and her husband filed suit against Wyeth only on July 2, 2004.
R.2947a. On her fact sheet, she indicated that sometime in November 2000 she was
told that her condition “may be related” to the use of hormone therapy medications.
R.3060a.
– 11 –