Price v. Purdue Pharma Co., et al.
| Docket Number: | 2003-CA-02101-SCT Linked Case(s): 2003-CA-02101-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 02-02-2006 Opinion Author: Carlson, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Personal injury - Wrongful conduct rule - M.R.C.P. 56(e) Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Waller and Cobb, P.JJ., and Dickinson, J. Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz and Randolph, JJ. Dissenting Author : Easley and Graves, JJ. Procedural History: Summary Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - PERSONAL INJURY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 08-22-2003 Appealed from: Hinds County Circuit Court Judge: W. Swan Yerger Disposition: Granted Appellees' Motions for Summary Judgment Case Number: 251-02-1155CIV |
|
| Consolidated: Consolidated with 2003-CA-02101-SCT Ernest Price v. The Purdue Pharma Company; Purdue Pharma, L. P.; Purdue Pharma, Inc.; Purdue Frederick Company; The P. F. Laboratories, Inc.; Abbott Laboratories and Abbott Laboratories, Inc.; Gerry Ann Houston, M.D.; Ronald B. Williams, M.D.; Roger Collins, M.D.; Eckerd Corporation; and Walgreen Company; Hinds Circuit Court 1st District; LC Case #: 251-02-1155CIV; Ruling Date: 08/22/2003; Ruling Judge: W. Yerger | ||
| Note: | Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Appeal as Untimely filed by counsel for Ronald B. Williams, M.D., and the Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Appeal as Untimely filed by counsel for Gerry Ann Houston, M.D., are dismissed as moot. | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Ernest Price |
LEONARD McCLELLAN, HERBERT LEE, JR. |
||
| Appellee: | The Purdue Pharma Company; Purdue Pharma, L. P.; Purdue Pharma, Inc.; Purdue Frederick Company; The P. F. Laboratories, Inc.; Abbott Laboratories and Abbott Laboratories, Inc.; Gerry Ann Houston, M.D.; Ronald B. Williams, M.D.; Roger Collins, M.D.; Eckerd Corporation; and Walgreen Company | CHRISTOPHER A. SHAPLEY, ROBERT L. GIBBS, LAWRENCE ELVIN ALLISON, JR., STEVE J. ALLEN, JOSEPH ANTHONY SCLAFANI, BRADLEY WITHERSPOON SMITH, WALKER W. (BILL) JONES, III, BARRY W. FORD, TERENCE L. HIGH, CABLE M. FROST, ROBERT F. WALKER, JOHN LEWIS HINKLE , IV, CHRIS J. WALKER, LEE DAVIS THAMES, JR, R. E. PARKER, JR., WHITMAN B. JOHNSON, III, JULIETTE VERONICA WILSON, JOHN ALFRED WAITS, ROBERT S. ADDISON, C. PAIGE HERRING, JAMES P. STREETMAN, III |
|
|
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. |
|
| Topic: | Personal injury - Wrongful conduct rule - M.R.C.P. 56(e) |
| Summary of the Facts: | Ernest Price sued multiple defendants claiming he sustained injuries from ingesting OxyContin, including addiction to the drug. The trial court granted various motions for summary judgment filed by several defendants because the facts revealed the plaintiff’s claim arose from his own behavior which amounted to fraud and subterfuge, namely acquiring multiple prescriptions from multiple doctors during concurrent time periods. Price appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | The trial court’s decision to grant summary judgment rested on the principle of law that a plaintiff cannot recover in tort for injuries suffered if that plaintiff suffered those injuries while engaged, in or as a proximate result of, engaging in illegal conduct. Because OxyContin is a Schedule II controlled substance and subject to criminal statutory restrictions which Price violated by procuring multiple prescriptions from different doctors concurrently, the trial judge refused to allow Price to prevail on his claims. OxyContin is a strong pain medicine, a narcotic containing oxycodone and classified as a Schedule II drug. Pursuant to section 41-29-144(1), it is unlawful for any person knowingly or intentionally to acquire or obtain possession or attempt to acquire or obtain possession of a controlled substance by misrepresentation, fraud, forgery, deception or subterfuge. A plaintiff may be barred from any right of action when the incident giving rise to the claim was rooted in the plaintiff’s violation of law. At the same time, if the plaintiff is a lawbreaker at the time of his injury, that alone is not enough to bar the plaintiff from recovery. The injury must be a proximate result of committing the illegal act. If a plaintiff actually requires essential aid from his own illegal act to establish a claim, he has no case. Price absolutely requires the essential aid from his own misdeeds to establish his claim. His violation of the law is not merely a condition, but instead an integral and essential part of his case and the contributing cause of his alleged injury. Price never responded at trial, nor does he now, to the assertions that he was concurrently utilizing ten doctors and ten clinics in two cities and seven pharmacies in three cities to obtain OxyContin. The finding that no genuine issue of material fact existed here was correct. The wrongful conduct rule in Mississippi prevents a plaintiff from suing caregivers, pharmacies, and pharmaceutical companies and laboratories for addiction to a controlled substance which he obtained through his own fraud, deception, and subterfuge. Under M.R.C.P. 56(e), Price failed to meet his burden because he never filed responses to the later motions for summary judgment and responded to the initial motions only upon being ordered by the trial judge to do so. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
