Not a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Hollander v. Sandoz Pharms. Corp.

United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

May 10, 2002, Filed

No. 00-6135


 [*1195]  HENRY, Circuit Judge.

Dee and Don Hollander filed this products liability action in the District Court for Oklahoma County alleging that Parlodel,  [**2]  a drug manufactured by Sandoz Pharmaceuticals Corporation ("Sandoz"), now known as Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, and distributed by HCA Health Services of Oklahoma, Inc., doing business as Presbyterian Hospital ("Presbyterian Hospital"), caused Ms. Hollander to suffer an intracerebral hemorrhage shortly after she gave birth to the Hollanders' second child. After the Oklahoma County District Court dismissed the Hollanders' claim against Presbyterian Hospital, the remaining defendants removed the case to the federal district court.

The federal district court denied the Hollanders' motion to remand the case to state court. It rejected the Hollanders' arguments that it lacked jurisdiction over the remaining claims and that the defendants' removal petition was untimely. Subsequently, the federal district court dismissed the defendant Sandoz, Ltd. with prejudice, reasoning that the holding company had its principal place of business in Switzerland and that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over it.

Finally, applying Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 125 L. Ed. 2d 469, 113 S. Ct. 2786 (1993), the federal district court ruled that [**3]  the Hollanders' expert testimony regarding the causal connection between Parlodel and intracerebral hemorrhages lacked the necessary reliability and was therefore inadmissible. See  Hollander v. Sandoz Pharms. Corp., 95 F. Supp. 2d 1230, 1238-39 (W.D. Okla. 2000). As a result, the court granted summary judgment to Sandoz.

The Hollanders now appeal those rulings, arguing that: (1) the federal district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction and therefore erred in denying their motion to remand the case to the Oklahoma state court; (2) the court erred in dismissing their claim against the defendant Presbyterian Hospital; (3) the court abused its discretion in ruling that the testimony of their experts was not sufficiently reliable to be admissible; (4) the court erred in granting summary judgment to Sandoz; and (5) the district court erred in dismissing their claim against Sandoz, Ltd., with prejudice.

For the reasons set forth below, we conclude that the federal district court had subject matter jurisdiction. We further hold that the court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the Hollanders' expert testimony was not sufficiently reliable and that the court [**4]  did not err in granting summary judgment to Sandoz. However, we agree with the Hollanders that the federal district court should have dismissed their claim against Sandoz, Ltd., without prejudice. In light of these conclusions, we do not address the Hollanders' challenge to the dismissal of their claim against Presbyterian Hospital.

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

289 F.3d 1193 *; 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 9066 **; 58 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. (Callaghan) 1299; CCH Prod. Liab. Rep. P16,324

DEE HOLLANDER and DON HOLLANDER, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. SANDOZ PHARMACEUTICALS CORPORATION, a New Jersey corporation; SANDOZ, LTD., a foreign corporation; and HCA HEALTH SERVICES OF OKLAHOMA, INC., an Oklahoma corporation, d/b/a/ Presbyterian Hospital, Defendants-Appellees.

Subsequent History:  [**1]  Writ of certiorari denied: Hollander v. Sandoz Pharms. Corp., 2002 U.S. LEXIS 9270 (U.S. Dec. 16, 2002).


Hollander v. Sandoz Pharms. Corp., 95 F. Supp. 2d 1230, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8776 (W.D. Okla. 2000).

Disposition: Affirmed in part and remanded.


bromocriptine, district court, stroke, reliability, studies, hypertension, scientific, causation, postpartum, differential, animal, ergot, diagnosis, lactation, patients, vasoconstriction, blood pressure, disease, causes, suppressant, alkaloids, assess, cases, federal district court, scientific evidence, effects, factors, courts, methodology, dopamine

Civil Procedure, Removal, Specific Cases Removed, General Overview, Evidence, Testimony, Expert Witnesses, Procedural Matters, Preliminary Questions, Admissibility, Scientific Evidence, Standards for Admissibility, Expert Witnesses, Daubert Standard, Helpfulness, Kelly Frye Standard, Appeals, Standards of Review, Abuse of Discretion, Criminal Law & Procedure, Abuse of Discretion, Judicial Officers, Judges, Masters, Appointment of Masters, References, Pretrial Matters, Conferences, Pretrial Conferences, Court Appointed Experts, Procedural Matters, Environmental Law, Hazardous Wastes & Toxic Substances, Toxic Torts, Torts, Elements, Causation, De Novo Review, Discovery, Methods of Discovery, Summary Judgment Review, Standards of Review, Summary Judgment, Entitlement as Matter of Law, Supporting Materials, Discovery Materials, Causation in Fact, Products Liability, Types of Defects, Marketing & Warning Defects, Subject Matter Jurisdiction, Jurisdiction Over Actions, Healthcare Law, Healthcare Litigation, Actions Against Healthcare Workers, Doctors & Physicians, Theories of Liability, Strict Liability, Medical Treatment, Medical Devices