Case Brief A4
Case Brief A.4
GNAZZO v. G.D. SEARLE & CO.
973 F.2d 136 (1992)
U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
Pierce, Circuit Judge
Facts:
On November 11, 1974, Gnazzo had an intrauterine device (IUD) inserted in her uterus for contraceptive purposes. The IUD was developed, marketed and sold by G.D. Searle & Co. (Searle). When Gnazzo’s deposition was taken, she stated that her doctor had informed her that “the insertion would hurt, but not for long,” and that she “would have uncomfortable and probably painful periods for the first three to four months. On October 11, 1975, Gnazzo found it necessary to return to her physician due to excessive pain and cramping. During this visit she was informed by her doctor that he thought she had Pelvic inflammatory Disease (PID). She recalled that he stated that the infection was possibly caused by venereal disease or the use of the IUD. The PID was treated with antibiotics and cleared up shortly thereafter. Less than one year later, Gnazzo was again treated for an IUD-associated infection. This infection was also treated with antibiotics. Gnazzo continued using the IUD until it was finally removed in December of 1977. Following a laparoscopy in March of 1989, Gnazzo was informed by a fertility specialist that she was infertile because of PID-induced adhesions resulting from her prior IUD use. Subsequent to the determination, and at the request of her then-attorneys. Gnazzo completed a questionnaire dated May 11, 1989. In response to the following question, “when and why did you first suspect that your IUD had caused you any harm?” Gnazzo responded “sometime in 1981” and explained:
“I was married in April 1981 so I stopped using birth control so I could get pregnant, nothing ever happened (of course) then I started hearing and reading about how damaging IUD’s could be. I figured that was the problem however my marriage started to crumble so I never pursued the issue.”
On May4, 1990, Gnazzo initiated the underlying action
GNAZZO v. G.D. SEARLE & CO.
973 F.2d 136 (1992)
U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
Pierce, Circuit Judge
Facts:
On November 11, 1974, Gnazzo had an intrauterine device (IUD) inserted in her uterus for contraceptive purposes. The IUD was developed, marketed and sold by G.D. Searle & Co. (Searle). When Gnazzo’s deposition was taken, she stated that her doctor had informed her that “the insertion would hurt, but not for long,” and that she “would have uncomfortable and probably painful periods for the first three to four months. On October 11, 1975, Gnazzo found it necessary to return to her physician due to excessive pain and cramping. During this visit she was informed by her doctor that he thought she had Pelvic inflammatory Disease (PID). She recalled that he stated that the infection was possibly caused by venereal disease or the use of the IUD. The PID was treated with antibiotics and cleared up shortly thereafter. Less than one year later, Gnazzo was again treated for an IUD-associated infection. This infection was also treated with antibiotics. Gnazzo continued using the IUD until it was finally removed in December of 1977. Following a laparoscopy in March of 1989, Gnazzo was informed by a fertility specialist that she was infertile because of PID-induced adhesions resulting from her prior IUD use. Subsequent to the determination, and at the request of her then-attorneys. Gnazzo completed a questionnaire dated May 11, 1989. In response to the following question, “when and why did you first suspect that your IUD had caused you any harm?” Gnazzo responded “sometime in 1981” and explained:
“I was married in April 1981 so I stopped using birth control so I could get pregnant, nothing ever happened (of course) then I started hearing and reading about how damaging IUD’s could be. I figured that was the problem however my marriage started to crumble so I never pursued the issue.”
On May4, 1990, Gnazzo initiated the underlying action