Mr. & Mrs. Floyd Brock, Individually and as Next Friend of Rachel Brock, a Minor v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Mr. & Mrs. Floyd BROCK, Individually and as Next Friend of Rachel Brock, a Minor, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. MERRELL DOW PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., Defendant-Appellant
Subsequent history: vacated sub nom. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). (read from the later opinion; check before relying)
Opinion
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING Before GARZA, JOLLY, and JONES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Appellees have filed a petition for rehearing en banc with regard to our prior disposition of this case, Brock v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 874 F.2d 307, 308 (5th Cir.1989). Treating that petition as a petition for panel rehearing, we hereby modify our prior panel opinion.
At 313, we stated that “[w]e find, in this case, the lack of conclusive epidemiological proof to be fatal to the Brocks’ case.” We hereby change that sentence to read “[w]e find, in this case, the Brocks’ failure to present statistically significant epidemiological proof that Bendectin causes limb reduction defects to be fatal to their case.”
We also change the last two sentences of the second to last paragraph on 315, which read:
Hopefully, our decision will have the effect of encouraging district judges faced with medical and epidemiologic proof in subsequent toxic tort cases to be especially vigilant in scrutinizing the basis, reasoning, and conclusiveness of studies presented by both sides. However, we do not wish this case to stand as a bar to future Bendectin cases in the event that new and conclusive studies emerge which would give a jury a firmer basis on which to determine the issue of causation.
These sentences should read as follows:
Hopefully, our decision will have the effect of encouraging district judges faced with medical and epidemiologic proof in subsequent toxic tort cases to be especially vigilant in scrutinizing the basis, reasoning, and statistical significance of studies presented by both sides. However, we do not wish this case to stand as a bar to future Bendectin cases in the event that new and statistically significant studies emerge which would give a jury a firmer basis on which to determine the issue of causation.
With the exception of the above changes, the panel adheres to its prior opinion in this case.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 3 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(“The cold statement that a given relationship is not ‘statistically significant’ cannot be read to mean there is no probability of a relationship.”)
-
(Reavley, J. dissenting, along with five other judges, from the denial of a motion for rehearing in banc and criticizing the majority opinion in Brock)
Cited by 71 cases
View all citing references →- U.S. Supreme Court1
- U.S. Courts of Appeals25
- Federal District Courts26
- Bankruptcy Courts1
- State Highest Courts8
- State Appellate Courts8
- State Trial Courts2
Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
- Ruffin v. BP Expl & Prod
- Williams v. BP Exploration & Production, Inc.
- Hidalgo County, Texas v. Dora Herrera, Individually, and as Representative of the Estate of Reynaldo Herrera, Eric Herrera, Efren Herrera, Michael Herrera, Jessica Herrera Rodriguez, Celia Herrera, Vanessa Herrera, Veronica Herrera Rodriguez Herrera, and Rey Herrera
- Enbridge Pipelines (East Texas) L.P. v. Gilbert Wheeler, Inc.
- City of Plainview Texas, William Mull, in His Official Capacity as Chief of Police of the City of Plainview Police Department, and Ken Coughlin, Capacity as Chief of Police of the City of Plainview Police Department v. Korey Ferguson
- Planned Parenthood Minnesota v. Mike Rounds
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.