Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Share your feedback on this Case Opinion Preview

Thank You For Submiting Feedback!

Experience a New Era in Legal Research with Free Access to Lexis+

  • Case Opinion

MacDonald v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp.

MacDonald v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts

May 8, 1984, Argued ; February 28, 1985, Decided

No. W-3489

Opinion

 [*132]  [**66]   This products liability action raises the question of the extent of a drug [***3]  manufacturer's duty to warn consumers of dangers inherent in the use of oral contraceptives. The plaintiffs brought suit against the defendant, Ortho Pharmaceutical Corporation (Ortho), for injuries allegedly caused by Ortho's birth control pills, and obtained a jury verdict in their favor. The defendant moved for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The judge concluded that the defendant did not owe a duty to warn the plaintiffs, and entered judgment for Ortho. The plaintiffs appealed. We transferred the case to this court on our own motion and reinstate the jury verdict. 2

We summarize the facts. In September, 1973, the plaintiff Carole D. MacDonald (MacDonald), who was twenty-six years old at the time, obtained from her gynecologist a prescription for Ortho-Novum contraceptive pills, manufactured by Ortho. As required by the then effective regulations promulgated by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA),  [***4]  the pill dispenser she received was labeled with a warning that "oral contraceptives are powerful and effective drugs which can cause side effects in some users and should not be used at all by some women," and that "[t]he most serious known side effect is abnormal blood clotting which can be fatal." 3 [***5]  The  [*133]  warning also referred MacDonald  [**67]  to a booklet which she obtained from her gynecologist, and which was distributed by Ortho pursuant to FDA requirements. The booklet contained detailed information about the contraceptive pill, including the increased risk to pill users that vital organs such as the brain may be damaged by abnormal blood clotting. 4 The word  [*134]  "stroke" did not appear on the dispenser warning or in the booklet.

 [***6]  MacDonald's prescription for Ortho-Novum pills was renewed at subsequent annual visits to her gynecologist. The prescription was filled annually. On July 24, 1976, after approximately three years of using the pills, MacDonald suffered an occlusion of a cerebral artery by a blood clot, an injury commonly referred to as a stroke. 5 The injury caused the death of approximately twenty per cent of MacDonald's brain tissue, and left her permanently disabled. She and her husband initiated an action in the Superior Court against Ortho, seeking recovery for her personal injuries and his consequential damages and loss of consortium.

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.

394 Mass. 131 *; 475 N.E.2d 65 **; 1985 Mass. LEXIS 1370 ***; CCH Prod. Liab. Rep. P10,454

Carole D. MacDonald & another 1 v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corporation

Prior History:  [***1]  Worcester.

Civil action commenced in the Superior Court on February 15, 1978.

The case was tried before William C. O'Neil, Jr., J.

The Supreme Judicial Court on its own initiative transferred the case from the Appeals Court.

Disposition: So ordered.

CORE TERMS

warn, pills, manufacturer, contraceptive, consumer, patient, risks, prescription drug, users, regulations, clotting, blood, stroke, oral contraceptive, common law duty, abnormal, complied, prescribing physician, drug manufacturer, duty to warn, side effect, conveying, booklet, gynecologist, prescription, prescribing, informing, annual, fulfil, birth

Torts, Elements, Causation, Intervening Causation, Products Liability, Types of Defects, Marketing & Warning Defects, Healthcare Law, Healthcare Litigation, Actions Against Healthcare Workers, General Overview, Medical Treatment, Proof, Evidence, Negligence, Civil Procedure, Trials, Jury Trials, Province of Court & Jury, Appeals, Standards of Review, De Novo Review, Judgment as Matter of Law