Brief Fact Summary. Ms. Zuchowicz (Plaintiff) took an overdose of the drug, Danocrine because of the erroneous directions of a prescription. Plaintiff brought suit against the United States (Defendant) under the Federal Tort Claims Act.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. If (a) a negligent act was deemed wrong because the act increase the chances that a particular type of accident would occur; and (b) a mishap of that very sort did happen, this is enough to support a finding by a tier of fact that the negligent behavior caused the harm.
The four factors include: (1) whether the theory or technique can be or has been tested; (2) whether the theory or technique has been subjected to peer review and publication; (3) the known or potential rate of error in the case of a particular scientific technique; and (4) whether the theory or technique is generally accepted within the relevant scientific community.
View Full Point of LawIssue. Did Plaintiff present sufficient evidence that the overdose of Danocrine caused her illness?
Held. Yes. Judgment affirmed.
* The trier of fact could have concluded that Plaintiff’s PPH was, more likely than not, caused by Danocrine. Expert testimony was presented and supported a finding of drug-induced PPH to a reasonable medical certainty. There was not a long latency period between the onset of symptoms and the patient’s exposure to the drug.
* However, in order to prove causation, it is necessary that the fact finder be able to conclude, more probably than not, that the overdose was the cause of Plaintiff’s illness and ultimate death. The mere fact that the exposure to Danocrine was likely responsible for the disease does not suffice.
* If (a) a negligent act was deemed wrong because the act increase the chances that a particular type of accident would occur; and (b) a mishap of that very sort did happen, this is enough to support a finding by a tier of fact that the negligent behavior caused the harm. When such a strong casual connection exists, the burden shifts to Defendant to show that the wrongful conduct was not a substantial cause.
Discussion. It is not enough to say that the Danocrine was the cause of Plaintiff’s PPH. If it can be proven that a standard dosage of Danocrine would have caused Plaintiff’s PPH, then it was not the overdose of Danocrine that caused Plaintiff’s PPH. Plaintiff must show that it was the overdose itself. Because this is difficult to prove, the following test was used: If (a) a negligent act was deemed wrong because the act increase the chances that a particular type of accident would occur; and (b) a mishap of that very sort did happen, this is enough to support a finding by a tier of fact that the negligent behavior caused the harm. Plaintiff satisfied her burden and the burden thus shifts to Defendant.