Reed v. Pfizer, Inc.

Background

Louis Reed, Jr., proceeding without a lawyer, brought a diversity action against Pfizer Inc. He alleged that a drug he was prescribed—atorvastatin calcium tablets—caused pain, muscle breakdown, and other serious medical problems. Reed alleged that Pfizer manufactured, developed, and owned atorvastatin calcium.

Reed’s medical records stated that a biopsy showed an active muscle-damaging process most consistent with an immune-related condition. The records also identified possible drug- or toxin-induced muscle disease related to a statin medication, but described that explanation as less likely given Reed’s clinical history.

Reed originally sued Pfizer and the prescribing doctor. The earlier complaint was dismissed for lack of complete diversity, and Reed was allowed to refile. He then filed the amended complaint at issue here, naming only Pfizer. After the case was transferred to the Southern District of New York, Pfizer moved to dismiss.

Applicable law

The court applied Georgia law because New York choice-of-law rules use the law of the place where the injury occurred in product-liability cases, and Reed alleged that all of his injuries occurred in Georgia.

The court read Reed’s allegations to assert two possible Georgia-law theories: strict product liability and negligence. To survive a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), Reed had to allege facts making his claims legally plausible, rather than rely on conclusions without supporting facts. The court also construed Reed’s filings liberally because he was proceeding without a lawyer.

Strict-liability claim

The court held that Reed did not plausibly allege that Pfizer manufactured the atorvastatin he took. Reed’s amended complaint identified only the generic drug, without connecting his particular medication to Pfizer. The bottle photograph attached to his opposition papers identified “Biocon” and a specific National Drug Code. The court stated that federal drug records identified Biocon Pharma Inc. as the labeler and GRAVITI PHARMACEUTICALS PRIVATE LTD as the applicant manufacturing that drug. None of those entities was Pfizer, and Reed did not allege otherwise.

The court also held that Reed did not plausibly allege a product defect. His allegations treated atorvastatin generally as dangerous, rather than identifying a manufacturing defect in the particular product. He did not allege a marketing or packaging defect, such as a failure to warn about a specific risk. The court therefore treated his allegations as a possible design-defect theory, but found that statements that atorvastatin had “poisoned” him, was defective, and should be removed from the market were too general and conclusory.

The court further held that Reed did not plausibly allege causation. Because he did not identify a specific design or manufacturing defect, the court could not reasonably infer that such a defect caused his injuries. The medical report’s statement that a drug-related cause was less likely also did not support a plausible causation allegation.

Negligence claim

The court reached the same result for the negligence theory. It held that Reed’s allegations were insufficient because Pfizer did not manufacture the drug he took, and because his allegations concerning breach of duty and causation were too conclusory.

Disposition

The court granted Pfizer’s motion to dismiss. It dismissed the claims asserted in Reed’s amended complaint and directed the clerk to terminate the motion and close the case. The opinion did not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.