Home/Fifth Circuit/Mr. & Mrs. Floyd Brock, Individually and as Next Friend of Rachel Brock, a Minor v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Mr. & Mrs. Floyd Brock, Individually and as Next Friend of Rachel Brock, a Minor v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

884 F.2d 166, 1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 13141, 1989 WL 90704
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedAugust 15, 1989
Docket88-2311
StatusPublished
Cited by84 cases

This text of 884 F.2d 166 (Mr. & Mrs. Floyd Brock, Individually and as Next Friend of Rachel Brock, a Minor v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.) 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
Mr. & Mrs. Floyd Brock, Individually and as Next Friend of Rachel Brock, a Minor v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 884 F.2d 166, 1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 13141, 1989 WL 90704 (5th Cir. 1989).

Opinion

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING

Before GARZA, JOLLY, and JONES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Appellees have filed a petition for rehearing en banc with regard to our prior disposition of this case, Brock v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 874 F.2d 307, 308 (5th Cir.1989). Treating that petition as a petition for panel rehearing, we hereby modify our prior panel opinion.

At 313, we stated that “[w]e find, in this case, the lack of conclusive epidemiological proof to be fatal to the Brocks’ case.” We hereby change that sentence to read “[w]e find, in this case, the Brocks’ failure to present statistically significant epidemiological proof that Bendectin causes limb reduction defects to be fatal to their case.”

We also change the last two sentences of the second to last paragraph on 315, which read:

Hopefully, our decision will have the effect of encouraging district judges faced with medical and epidemiologic proof in subsequent toxic tort cases to be especially vigilant in scrutinizing the basis, reasoning, and conclusiveness of studies presented by both sides. However, we do not wish this case to stand as a bar to future Bendectin cases in the event that new and conclusive studies emerge which would give a jury a firmer basis on which to determine the issue of causation.

These sentences should read as follows:

Hopefully, our decision will have the effect of encouraging district judges faced with medical and epidemiologic proof in subsequent toxic tort cases to be especially vigilant in scrutinizing the basis, reasoning, and statistical significance of studies presented by both sides. However, we do not wish this case to stand as a bar to future Bendectin cases in the event that new and statistically significant studies emerge which would give a jury a firmer basis on which to determine the issue of causation.

With the exception of the above changes, the panel adheres to its prior opinion in this case.

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

Related

Ruffin v. BP Expl & Prod
137 F.4th 276 (Fifth Circuit, 2025)
Williams v. BP Exploration & Production, Inc.
S.D. Mississippi, 2024
City of Plainview Texas, William Mull, in His Official Capacity as Chief of Police of the City of Plainview Police Department, and Ken Coughlin, Capacity as Chief of Police of the City of Plainview Police Department v. Korey Ferguson
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2015
Planned Parenthood Minnesota v. Mike Rounds
686 F.3d 889 (Eighth Circuit, 2012)
Wagoner v. Exxon Mobil Corp.
813 F. Supp. 2d 771 (E.D. Louisiana, 2011)
Arabie v. Citgo Petroleum Corp.
49 So. 3d 529 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2010)
Estate of George v. Vermont League of Cities & Towns
2010 VT 1 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 2010)
Cook v. Rockwell International Corp.
580 F. Supp. 2d 1071 (D. Colorado, 2008)
In Re Asbestos Litigation
900 A.2d 120 (Superior Court of Delaware, 2006)
Cano v. Everest Minerals Corp.
362 F. Supp. 2d 814 (W.D. Texas, 2005)
Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co. v. Atterbury
978 S.W.2d 183 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1998)
Maritime Overseas Corp. v. Ellis
971 S.W.2d 402 (Texas Supreme Court, 1998)
National Bank of Commerce v. Associated Milk Producers, Inc.
22 F. Supp. 2d 942 (E.D. Arkansas, 1998)
Sharp v. Stokes Towing Co., Inc.
989 F. Supp. 791 (N.D. Mississippi, 1998)
Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Havner
953 S.W.2d 706 (Texas Supreme Court, 1997)
Bob T. Moore and Susan Moore v. Ashland Chemical, Inc. And Ashland Oil, Inc.
126 F.3d 679 (Fifth Circuit, 1997)
In Re Dow Corning Corp.
211 B.R. 545 (E.D. Michigan, 1997)
Kelley v. American Heyer-Schulte Corp.
957 F. Supp. 873 (W.D. Texas, 1997)
Pick v. American Medical Systems, Inc.
958 F. Supp. 1151 (E.D. Louisiana, 1997)
Allen v. Sun Refining
Fifth Circuit, 1996

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
884 F.2d 166, 1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 13141, 1989 WL 90704, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mr-mrs-floyd-brock-individually-and-as-next-friend-of-rachel-brock-a-ca5-1989.