# MacE v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

> West Virginia Supreme Court · July 22, 2011 · 227 W. Va. 666

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9781613

## Case

- **Full name:** Randy L. MACE, Personal Representative of the Estate of Kathy W. MacE, Deceased, Plaintiff Below, Appellant v. MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., Mylan, Inc., and Mylan Technologies, Inc., Defendants Below, Appellees
- **Court:** West Virginia Supreme Court
- **Decided:** July 22, 2011
- **Citations:** 227 W. Va. 666; 714 S.E.2d 223
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Ketchum
- **Judges:** Workman, Benjamin, Ketchum
- **Cited by:** 27 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9781613

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- discussing common law doctrine of forum non conveniens and subsequent codification of separate forum non conveniens statute in response to Morris v. Crown Equip. Corp., 219 W.Va. 347, 633 S.E.2d 292 (2006)
- discussing common law doctrine of forum non conveniens and subsequent codification of separate forum non con- veniens statute in response to Morris v. Crown Equip. Corp., 219 W.Va. 347, 633 S.E.2d 292 (2006)
- discussing common law doctrine of forum non conveniens and subsequent codification of separate forum non con- *30 veniens statute in response to Morris v. Crown Equip. Corp., 219 W.Va. 347, 633 S.E.2d 292 (2006)

## Opinion text

KETCHUM, J.,
dissenting:
WEST VIRGINIA CANNOT AFFORD TO BE A DUMPING GROUND FOR FOREIGN LAWSUITS.
West Virginia has very few trial judges and limited judicial resources. Nevertheless, the majority opinion will allow non-West Virginia residents, who suffered an injury in another state, to file their lawsuit in West Virginia.
In the present case, a North Carolina resident suffered an injury that occurred in North Carolina. The resulting lawsuit is barred under North Carolina law. Consequently, the North Carolina resident filed the lawsuit in West Virginia where the lawsuit would not be prohibited. If North Carolina law bars a North Carolina resident’s lawsuit then why should West Virginia entertain the matter? We should worry about West Virginia residents and torts that occur in West Virginia, rather than injuries suffered by a North Carolina resident that occurred in North Carolina.
The facts of this ease are straightforward: a North Carolina doctor prescribed a defective medical patch to a North Carolina resi *678 dent. The patch was not made or used in West Virginia. The North Carolina resident who used the defective patch died in North Carolina. The North Carolina statute of limitations bars the suit in North Carolina. The North Carolina resident therefore brought the suit in West Virginia because the lawsuit is not barred under our statute of limitations.
This lawsuit “would be more properly heard in a forum outside this state,” i.e. North Carolina. W. Va.Code § 56-1-la. We should not protect tort claims by North Carolina residents when the North Carolina legislature and judiciary have seen fit to prohibit these claims. We should protect West Virginia residents from defective products and let North Carolina deal with injuries suffered by North Carolina residents that occur in North Carolina.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9781613. Public record. Not legal advice.