Allgood v. Smithkline Beecham Corp.

314 F. App'x 701
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedMarch 13, 2009
Docket08-30329
StatusUnpublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 314 F. App'x 701 (Allgood v. Smithkline Beecham Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Allgood v. Smithkline Beecham Corp., 314 F. App'x 701 (5th Cir. 2009).

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

*702 In this action brought under the Louisiana Products Liability Act (“LPLA”), La. Rev.Stat. Ann. § 9:2800.51 et seq., plaintiffs appeal the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant, the maker of the prescription drug Paxil. Plaintiffs contend that the district court erred in applying the learned intermediary doctrine to their LPLA suit. We disagree. The district court properly followed our circuit precedent, which has expressly held that “Louisiana applies the ‘learned intermediary doctrine’ to products liability claims involving prescription drugs.” Stahl v. Novartis Pharm. Corp., 283 F.3d 254, 265 (5th Cir.2002). After reviewing the briefs and the record and hearing oral argument from the parties, we conclude that the district court correctly applied the learned intermediary doctrine in this case. Consequently, we AFFIRM the grant of summary judgment for the reasons stated by the district court. See 5th Cir. R. 47.6.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be *702 published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Scott v. Ariens Company
E.D. Louisiana, 2025
Summers v. FCA US LLC
E.D. Louisiana, 2024
Centocor, Inc. v. Hamilton
372 S.W.3d 140 (Texas Supreme Court, 2012)
Greaves v. Eli Lilly & Co.
277 F.R.D. 243 (E.D. New York, 2011)
Hood ex rel. Mississippi v. Eli Lilly & Co.
671 F. Supp. 2d 397 (E.D. New York, 2009)
Earl v. Eli Lilly & Co.
688 F. Supp. 2d 130 (E.D. New York, 2009)
In Re Zyprexa Products Liability Litig.
688 F. Supp. 2d 130 (E.D. New York, 2009)
In Re Zyprexa Products Liability Litigation
649 F. Supp. 2d 18 (E.D. New York, 2009)
Head v. Eli Lilly & Co.
649 F. Supp. 2d 18 (E.D. New York, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
314 F. App'x 701, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/allgood-v-smithkline-beecham-corp-ca5-2009.