O'Brien v. Eli Lilly & Co. - 668 F.2d 704 (3d Cir. 1981)

Rule:

In a personal injury action under Pennsylvania law, the period of limitations begins to run from the time the plaintiff, through the exercise of reasonable diligence, should have learned both the facts in question and that those facts bore some causative relationship to the injury.

Facts:

Appellant's mother was prescribed Stilbestrol in 1956 to prevent a miscarriage. Appellees, drug manufacturers, produced Stilbestrol. Appellant was born in 1957. In 1971, appellant experienced unusual vaginal bleeding. It was discovered that she had cancer and a radical hysterectomy, lymph node dissection, and partial vaginectomy was performed. In 1976, appellant read a magazine article that linked the drug to cancer in young women. Appellant did not actually discover that her mother took the drug until 1979. Appellant filed a personal injury suit in 1979. The district court granted appellees summary judgment based on the statute of limitations. Appellant sought review of the decision. 

Issue:

Was the appellant’s suit barred by the statute of limitations? 

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

The court affirmed the summary judgment grant to appellees, drug manufacturers, holding that the limitations period ran from when a plaintiff should have learned of the pertinent facts. Appellant claimant failed to exercise due diligence in determining whether her mother was prescribed the drug.