Motus v. Pfizer Inc. - 196 F. Supp. 2d 984 (C.D. Cal. 2001), aff'd, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 1944 (9th Cir.)

I. Issue
Whether Defendant is entitled to summary judgment when Plaintiff did not show that the result would have been different if Defendant had warned the doctor of suicidal effect more adequately.
II. Fact
D's medication (Zoloft) was prescribed to treat P's depression.  P committed suicide.  P's wife brought a lawsuit, alleging that D's failure to warn of this risk caused her husband to commit suicide.  D moved for summary judgement which is granted in the trial court.
III. Holding
A plaintiff asserting causes of action based on a failure to warn must prove not only that no warning was provided or the warning was inadequate, but also that the inadequacy or absence of the warning caused the plaintiff's injury.
This court will not apply the rebuttable presumption (had there been an adequate warning, the doctor would have heeded it) since no California court has adopted or applied that presumption.  P has failed to adduce evidence that Dr. Trostler would have acted differently had D provided an adequate warning about the risk of suicide associated with the ingestion of Zoloft.
Dr. Trostler's credibility is not a jury question because there is no equivocal evidence in the record, nor evidence undermining Dr. Trostler's veracity.
In any event, it would appear that P could not demonstrate that D's alleged overpromotion caused Dr. Trostler to prescribe Zoloft to P.
Thus, D is entitled to summary judgment.