[FCP] MCKENNA v. ORTHO PHARMACEUTICAL CORP 622 F.2d 657 (3d Cir. 1980)

[PA꿈나무]

MCKENNA v. ORTHO PHARMACEUTICAL CORP  622 F.2d 657 (3d Cir. 1980)

Facts

·         McKenna v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp is a product liability case involving allegations of inadequate warning and failure to inform consumers about the risks associated with a prescription drug.

·         The case centered on the contraceptive pill known as "Ortho-Novum," manufactured and marketed by Ortho Pharmaceutical Corporation.

·         Plaintiff Joseph McKenna alleged that the contraceptive pills had caused his wife, Mary McKenna, to develop cervical cancer, ultimately leading to her death.

Issue

Whether the district court was erred in applying the statute of limitations under Ohio law?

Rules

The period of limitation applicable to a claim accruing outside this Commonwealth shall be either that provided or prescribed by the law of the place where the claim accrued or by the law of this Commonwealth, whichever first bars the claim.

Application

·         The district court made an error in applying Ohio's statute of limitations.

·         The McKennas lived in Ohio, and they initially filed their lawsuit in a Pennsylvania state court. Ortho Pharmaceutical, the defendant, requested the case be removed to the federal district court in Pittsburgh.

·         In order to determine which state's law applies in this diversity case, the federal court must look to the law that would be applied by the courts of the state where it sits. This principle stems from the Erie doctrine.

·         Pennsylvania has a "borrowing statute." Borrowing statutes allow a state to use a shorter statute of limitations from another jurisdiction for cases that originated there. In McKenna's case, her cause of action arose in Ohio, so the federal court needed to determine when Ohio's statute of limitations began to run.

·         The federal court must consider various factors, including state precedents, analogous decisions, considered dicta, scholarly works, and other reliable data to predict how the highest state court would decide the issue.

·         Ohio has three rules for statute of limitations: the traditional rule, Wyler v. Tripi, and the discovery rule. Depending on which rule is applied, the outcome of the case could differ.

·         The traditional rule looks at when the disease or injury first occurred. In McKenna's case, she developed severe headaches and had transient ischemic attacks in 1967.

·         Wyler v. Tripi held that the cause of action arises when the physician-patient relationship ends, not when the patient discovers the injury. Ohio favored the Wyler rule.

·         If Wyler applied to McKenna's case, her physician-patient relationship ended in June 1969, and she filed the lawsuit in November 1973. This would place her filing outside the statute of limitations, which means her case would be time-barred.

·         However, the federal court noted that blindly applying stare decisis (precedent) might not align with the evolving trends in Ohio jurisprudence. The court recognized that Ohio was moving away from the traditional rule and towards adopting the discovery rule in cases like McKenna's.

·         In the Melnyk v. Cleveland case, the Ohio Supreme Court had already embraced the discovery rule. This rule tolls the statute of limitations until the patient discovers, or with reasonable diligence should have discovered, the negligence.

·         By applying the discovery rule to McKenna's case, the federal court believed it was predicting how the Ohio Supreme Court would rule. This meant that the statute of limitations would only begin running once McKenna discovered her injury, which she did in March 1972, well within the statute of limitations.

Conclusion

This court properly reversed the judgement of the district court, and remand for further proceeding consistent with opinion.

Significance

Wyler – whether the factual basis is identical.