Dahl v. HEM Pharm. Corp. - 7 F.3d 1399 (9th Cir. 1993)

Rule:

The grant or denial of a preliminary injunction will be reversed only where the district court abused its discretion or based its decision on an erroneous legal standard or on clearly erroneous findings of fact. 

Facts:

Dahl and seventeen others, afflicted with chronic fatigue syndrome, enrolled in an experimental program to test a new medication. HEM Pharmaceuticals makes the medication, called Ampligen. The patients received the medicine as part of the testing procedure used by the Food and Drug Administration to determine whether a medicine is safe and effective. When the test was over, HEM ceased providing the medication to the patients. They sued for injunctive and other relief, claiming that HEM promised to continue providing Ampligen to them after the study ended if statistical analysis showed efficacy compared to placebo. The district court granted a preliminary injunction, requiring HEM to continue providing Ampligen for twelve months. Because HEM initially failed to comply with the injunction, the district court held it in civil contempt. HEM appeals, claiming that it should not have been so enjoined. One of the patients cross-appeals, claiming that the preliminary injunction should not have been limited to twelve months.

Issue:

Did the district court err in limiting the preliminary injunction to one year?

Answer:

No

Conclusion:

The court affirmed the judgment, holding that the patients incurred the detriment of being tested upon in exchange for the promise of a year's treatment of the drug. The court held that upon the completion of the tests, there was a binding contract. The court rejected one patient’s argument that the district court erred in limiting the preliminary injunction to one year. The court held that the district judge found that the promise of the drug for life was not made. The court held that there was not clear error in the district judge's finding.