Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

plaintiffdamagesnegligencetestimonysummary judgment
plaintiffsummary judgment

Related Cases

Smith v. Commissioner of Transitional Assistance, 431 Mass. 638, 729 N.E.2d 627
View Case »
Lloyd v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 55 F.2d 842, 3 USTC P 873, 10 A.F.T.R. 1195, 1932-2 C.B. 268
View Case »
Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Tower., 326 U.S. 703, 66 S.Ct. 55 (Mem), 90 L.Ed. 415
View Case »
Doyle v. Mitchell Bros. Co., 247 U.S. 179, 38 S.Ct. 467, 62 L.Ed. 1054, 1 USTC P 17, 3 A.F.T.R. 2979
View Case »
Sleiman v. C.I.R., 187 F.3d 1352, 84 A.F.T.R.2d 99-5987, 99-2 USTC P 50,828, 12 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 1273
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Greenlee v. United States, Not Reported in Fed. Supp., 2010 WL 11688472

Facts

Maria Greenlee was prescribed Depo-Provera for birth control from 1999 to 2007. She alleged that her healthcare providers failed to inform her of the risks, including osteoporosis, associated with the drug. As a result, she claimed to have suffered serious injuries, including osteoporosis, leading to loss of wages and pain. The Greenlees sought damages totaling $2 million, but the Government moved for summary judgment, arguing that the Greenlees could not prove causation or that Mrs. Greenlee had osteoporosis.

Mrs. Greenlee had three pregnancies, each occurring while she was taking birth control pills. Mrs. Greenlee testified that she and her husband chose not to use alternative methods of birth control. The Government contends that a reasonable person would have taken Depo-Provera even if she knew for sure she would have gotten osteoporosis rather than have an unwanted pregnancy.

Issue

Did the healthcare providers fail to meet the standard of care by not adequately informing Mrs. Greenlee of the risks associated with Depo-Provera, and did this failure cause her alleged injuries?

The Government moves for summary judgment on the grounds that (1) the Greenlees can show no causation for informed consent; (2) the lack of a baseline bone density score prevents causation; (3) cessation of Depo-Provera before the black box warning and resumption of the injections 16 months later for less than two years prevents causation attributable to any standard of care in the two-year limit in the black box warning; (4) Mrs. Greenlee does not and did not have osteoporosis; (5) osteopenia and osteoporosis are not injuries; and (6) judgment against Mrs. Greenlee forecloses any relief by Mr. Greenlee.

Rule

Under Illinois law, a plaintiff must prove the standard of care, a negligent failure to comply with that standard, and a resulting injury proximately caused by the provider's lack of skill or care. Medical testimony is required to establish these elements.

Under Illinois law, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove the proper standard of care by which a provider's conduct may be measured, negligent failure to comply with the applicable standard, and a resulting injury proximately caused by the provider's lack of skill or care.

Analysis

The court analyzed the evidence presented by both parties, noting that the Greenlees failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish a causal link between the alleged negligence and Mrs. Greenlee's claimed injuries. The court highlighted that the absence of a baseline bone density score made it impossible to determine if Depo-Provera caused any bone density issues. Additionally, the court found that the Greenlees did not demonstrate that Mrs. Greenlee had osteoporosis, as expert opinions indicated she had only osteopenia.

The Greenlees cannot prevail on this issue. There is no question that Mrs. Greenlee has a lengthy medical history and has suffered pain and disability. What is missing, however, is evidence of a nexus between taking Depo-Provera – even assuming it caused her to have osteoporosis – and any medical condition that she suffered.

Conclusion

The court granted summary judgment in favor of the Government, concluding that the Greenlees could not establish the necessary elements of their claim, particularly causation and the existence of an injury.

The Court concludes that for the reasons provided in Dr. Diemer's declaration, Mrs. Greenlee did not have and could not have had osteoporosis in 2007 – nor did she have osteoporosis in 2009.

Who won?

The United States prevailed in the case because the court found that the Greenlees failed to prove causation and that Mrs. Greenlee did not suffer from osteoporosis as claimed.

The United States prevailed in the case because the court found that the Greenlees failed to prove causation and that Mrs. Greenlee did not suffer from osteoporosis as claimed.

You must be