# Upjohn Company v. MacMurdo

> Supreme Court of Florida · May 31, 1990 · 15 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 313

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9943901

## Case

- **Full name:** The Upjohn Company v. Anne Marie MacMurdo
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Florida
- **Decided:** May 31, 1990
- **Citations:** 15 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 313; 562 So. 2d 680; 1990 Fla. LEXIS 739; 1990 WL 74594
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Shaw
- **Judges:** Grimes, Kogan, Shaw
- **Cited by:** 37 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/9943901

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- applying Illinois law and holding summary judgment was proper where the warning was plain, clear and accurate

## Opinion text

I cannot agree that the warning here was adequate as a matter of law when there was expert evidence to the contrary and competent, substantial evidence to support the jury's conclusion. I would therefore affirm the trial and district courts.
The record shows that after injection with Depo-Provera, the plaintiff bled uninterruptedly for five months before resorting to a hysterectomy. The package insert *Page 684
provided by Upjohn omitted any warning of "prolonged bleeding" 1 and is thus not "accurate, clear and unambiguous," as required by Felix v. Hoffmann-LaRoche, Inc., 540 So.2d 102
(Fla. 1989).
That the instant warning was inadequate is shown by the testimony of Dr. Levy, M.D., one of the prescribing physicians. He testified that the plaintiff complained of abnormal bleeding, that he told her a hysterectomy would correct her bleeding problem, and that he did not consider that Depo-Provera might have been causing 2 her problem because he expected the drug to have just the opposite effect — amenorrhea (the absence of bleeding). He further stated that abnormal bleeding was not listed on the package insert as an adverse reaction. Dr. Benjamin, Ph.D., a pharmacologist who had worked for three major drug companies writing package inserts, testified that in his opinion the language of the insert was inadequate.
Upjohn knew that prolonged bleeding was an effect of Depo-Provera administration — it was reported in a 1983 article in the medical literature written by an employee of Upjohn and published with Upjohn's consent. The article 3 disclosed that, in the first three months after administration of the drug, more than twenty-five percent of women bled from eleven days to up to every day per month and that, after a second injection, more than ten percent continued to experience bleeding from eleven to every day per month. Furthermore, some women in the study withdrew their participation because they were unwilling to suffer the bleeding effects of the drug.
The jury heard conflicting evidence and as fact-finder rendered a verdict. In this battle of experts, I do not feel this Court is qualified to reweigh and reevaluate that evidence. I therefore dissent.
KOGAN, J., concurs.
1 Dr. Shapiro, M.D., testified that "prolonged bleeding" is a term of art.
2 Dr. Roshan, M.D., testified that Depo-Provera was the cause of plaintiff's bleeding.
3 The article was based on a study of Depo-Provera conducted between 1965 and 1971.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9943901. Public record. Not legal advice.