American Home Products Corp. et al. v. Sumlin
| Docket Number: | 2004-IA-02524-SCT | |
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 11-16-2006 Opinion Author: SMITH, C.J. Holding: REVERSED AND REMANDED |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Judge(s) Concurring: WALLER AND COBB, P.JJ., DIAZ, EASLEY, CARLSON, DICKINSON AND
RANDOLPH, JJ. Dissenting Author : GRAVES, J. Procedural History: Dismissal Nature of the Case: CIVIL - OTHER |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 12-17-2004 Appealed from: SMITH COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Robert G. Evans Disposition: Denied Appellant's Motion to Dismiss, Motion to Transfer Venue, & Motion for Reconsideration Case Number: 2002-351 |
|
| Note: | Nature of the Case: Pharmaceutical Liability | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | AMERICAN HOME PRODUCTS CORPORATION; WYETH-AYERST LABORATORIES COMPANY, A
DIVISION OF AMERICAN HOME PRODUCTS CORPORATION; AND A. H. ROBINS COMPANY, INCORPORATED |
WILLIAM M. GAGE, KENNETH W., BARTON, LEANN W. NEALEY,
ROBERT D. GHOLSON |
||
| Appellee: | MYRA SUMLIN | WILLIAM R. COUCH, RICHARD, JOSEPH LAJAUNIE, THOMAS Q. BRAME, JR. |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Summary of the Facts: | After a wave of litigation following the removal of the diet drugs known as fen-phen from the market, the United States District Court of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania approved a Class Action Settlement Agreement. Under the Agreement, class members could initially opt out or remain in the class. Should members choose to remain in the class, the Agreement also provided downstream opt-out rights, which would allow class members to sue Wyeth (A.H. Robins Company, Incorporated, American Home Products Corporation, and Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories Company) in state or federal court. In order to exercise intermediate optout rights, class members had to be medically eligible under specific parameters as set forth in the Agreement. Myra Sumlin filed suit against Wyeth in October of 2002, pursuing a claim against Wyeth as an “Intermediate Opt-Out” from the Agreement. Wyeth filed a motion to dismiss Sumlin’s complaint, arguing Sumlin failed to meet the opt-out requirements. The trial court denied Wyeth’s motion to dismiss, Wyeth’s motion to transfer venue, as well as Wyeth’s motion for reconsideration. The Supreme Court granted an interlocutory appeal. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Wyeth argues that the court erred when it denied its motion to transfer venue, because venue is improper in Smith County. Wyeth argues that under Capital City Ins. Co. v. G.B. “Boots” Smith Corp., 889 So. 2d 505 (Miss. 2004), proper venue lies in Wayne County. There, the Court addressed the applicability of competing venue statutes, sections 11-11-3, our general venue statute, and 11-11-7, our venue statute governing suits against insurance companies. The Court held that between the mandatory “shall” language in section 11-11-3, and the permissive “may” language in section 11-11-7, section 11-11-3 controlled. Wyeth argues section 11-11-3 is controlling over section 11-11-11, Mississippi’s venue statute concerning suits against foreign residents, because section 11-11-11 also uses the permissive “may” language. Wyeth is correct and although the Capital City decision was handed down after Sumlin filed her suit, our case law is clear that Capital City applies retroactively, as Sumlin’s case was ongoing when Capital City was decided. Wyeth also argues venue is improper in Smith County under section 11-11-3 because Sumlin’s claim neither occurred nor accrued in Smith County. Wyeth argues Sumlin’s alleged injuries accrued in Wayne County, because Sumlin lived in Wayne County at that time, as well as received, filled, and took her Redux prescriptions in Wayne County. Sumlin argues her claims accrued in Smith County because she was a resident of Smith County when her echocardiogram was performed and because her claims of emotional distress and psychological pain and suffering accrued during her Smith County residency. At the very least, the word ‘occur’ connotes each county in which a substantial component of the claim takes place. Sumlin neither obtained a prescription for Redux, filled the prescription, nor ingested the pills in any other county but Wayne County. The performance and interpretation of an echocardiogram, alone, is not sufficient so as to constitute a substantial component of this claim. Likewise, any emotional distress or psychological pain resulting from the findings of an echocardiogram does not constitute a substantial component of the claim. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
