W.D. Va. Grants SJ for Defendants in OxyContin Addiction Case

Earlier today, the court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment in a prescription drug products liability case. In Boysaw v. Purdue Pharma, the plaintiff, a federal inmate proceeding pro se, sued the manufacturer of OxyContin for negligence, failure to warn, breach of implied warranty, and additional federal law claims, alleging that the manufacturer’s actions caused him to be addicted to the drug.

In support of its motion for summary judgment, the defendant submitted a declaration where its expert opined that due to other medications that the plaintiff was taking , “he would have become physically dependent on opioids during the time in question even if he had not also taken the OxyContin he took.” The plaintiff did not produce an expert or any scientific evidence to rebut this expert opinion.

Applying Virginia tort law, the court noted the “settled principle” that a plaintiff bears the burden of producing evidence that the defendant was the proximate, or “but for” cause, of the sustained injury. Quoting a prior published opinion, the court stated that although “Virginia tort law does not mandate expert testimony to show proof of causation in every case[,] . . . in a products liability action, proof of causation must ordinarily be supported by expert testimony because of the complexity of the causation facts.” Accordingly, the court concluded that:

Although I am sympathetic to Boysaw’s indigence and inability to pay for an
expert, it is his burden to make a sufficient showing that OxyContin was the
cause of his physical dependence and addiction to opioids, and he has not done
so. Since causation is an essential element for each of his claims, including
the negligence and failure to warn claims, summary judgment in favor of the
defendant is appropriate at this time.