In the Superior Court of Pennsylvania - How Appealing

Under California law, as under Pennsylvania law, the discovery rule operates
to postpone the commencement of the statute of limitations applicable to a cause of
action. See Fox v. Ethicon Endo–Surgery, Inc., 35 Cal. 4th 797, 810–11, 110 P.3d
914, 922–23, 27 Cal. Rptr. 3d 661, 670–71 (2005). And in California, as in
Pennsylvania, whether to apply the discovery rule ordinarily presents a question of
fact for the jury. See id. at 810, 110 P.3d at 922, 27 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 670.
Judge Tereshko ruled that the claims of these 10 California plaintiffs were
time–barred using either State’s prescriptive period because, in his view, the
plaintiffs could not invoke the discovery rule. If plaintiffs could invoke the discovery
rule, their claims would be timely under the two–year statute of limitations that
would apply under both California and Pennsylvania law.
Plaintiff Hazel Blaylock was diagnosed with breast cancer in December 2000.
R.2874a. She filed suit against Wyeth and Upjohn in June 2004, within two years of
the WHI study’s results. R.2850a. On the fact sheet filed shortly after her
complaint, Ms. Blaylock checked a line indicating that, in November 2001, her
physician informed her that her breast cancer “is related” to hormone therapy
drugs. R.2900a. The fact sheet contained no definition for the phrase “is related to”
and does not even suggest that defendants intended to interpret this phrase to
mean that the plaintiff was aware of what “caused” her breast cancer.
If defendants had wanted to know on what date the plaintiff knew the cause
of her breast cancer, defendants could have asked that question. Instead, the
defendants asked a question that requests the plaintiff to explain any conversations
– 13 –