In the Superior Court of Pennsylvania - How Appealing

articles per day nationwide. Larger States — such as California, Florida, New York,
Pennsylvania, and Texas — are of course home to many more than just one major
newspaper.
While large corporations such as defendants can afford services that track
press coverage relating to them, there is little if any likelihood that any of this
coverage actually reached any of these 14 plaintiffs. Defendants have certainly not
proven beyond genuine issue that the plaintiffs received the articles and reports on
which defendants rely. Rather, defendants have produced absolutely no evidence
that any of these plaintiffs were aware of any of the news coverage or handful of
medical journal articles that defendants cite.
The real evidence in this case — affidavits concerning the discussions
plaintiffs had with their physicians at the time of diagnosis and when they became
aware that defendants’ drugs had caused their breast cancer, and not unadorned
news clippings of dubious relevance — shows the contrary.
For example, Mrs. Manalo’s physician told her that there was no way to
confirm what actually caused her breast cancer, and she testified that she did not
learn that hormone therapy could cause breast cancer until early 2004, when she
saw a television advertisement reporting that the WHI study had established a
causal link between breast cancer and Wyeth’s hormone therapy medications.
R.3013a–14a. Similarly, Ms. Hess submitted to the trial court the affidavit of Dr.
Douglas Yingling, who was her general surgeon and the physician who managed
her cancer surgery. In his affidavit, Dr. Yingling testified that he does not
– 30 –