Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T09:14:03.806Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

American Journal of Law & Medicine and Harvard Law & Health Care Society

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Iris Lan
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Recent Developments in Health Law
Information
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , Volume 29 , Issue 1 , Spring 2001 , pp. 100 - 102
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2001

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Methylphenidate is a psychostimulant drug considered a “Class II” controlled substance under the Controlled Substances Act. See 21 U.S.C. § 812; 21 C.F.R. § 1308.12.Google Scholar
Ciba-Geigy Corporation was the primary Ritalin maker and supplier in the United States from approximately 1955 through 1995. The merger of Ciba-Geigy with Sandoz created Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation in 1996. Since 1996, Novartis has been the drug's sole manufacturer and American supplier.Google Scholar
CHADD is an unincorporated and non-profit association that currently provides information for parents with children with ADHD and adults with the disorder.Google Scholar
Hernandez v. Ciba-Geigy Corp. USA (Texas Dist. Ct., [No. 2000-05-1888-D], filed May 1, 2000).Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
The plaintiffs must show that the defendants had a culpable state of mind called “scienter.” According to the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 526 (1979), a defendant acts with scienter if he (1) knew or believed that he was not telling the truth; (2) did not have the confidence in the accuracy of his statement that he stated or implied that he did; or (3) knew that he did not have the grounds for a statement that he stated or implied that he did.Google Scholar
Thus, the plaintiffs must show that they relied on the misrepresentation and that their reliance was justifiable.Google Scholar
Restatement (Second) of Torts § 525 (1979).Google Scholar
However, if the defendant simply fails to disclose a material fact, it is harder for the plaintiff to establish the requisite misrepresentation. In courts that follow the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 551 (1979), the general rule remains that there is almost never a misrepresentation when a plaintiff merely fails to disclose. Exceptions include matters that must be disclosed because of a fiduciary relationship.Google Scholar
The complaint does not indicate how much money was spent.Google Scholar
Hernandez and Butler also claim that Novartis continually misrepresented the efficacy of Ritalin, leading them to believe that using the drug would improve academic performance. Hernandez, supra note 4.Google Scholar
More specifically, the plaintiffs listed cardiovascular problems ranging from palpitations to cardiac arrest; central nervous system problems ranging from agitation and irritability to psychosis with hallucinations and depression; and gastrointestinal problems ranging from mild ailments to vomiting and nausea.Google Scholar
Hernandez, supra note 4.Google Scholar
The actual donation amount may be in dispute, but the plaintiffs' complaint states that $748,000 was donated from 1991 to 1994. Id.Google Scholar
U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, Press Release (October 25, 1995).Google Scholar
The plaintiff filed the class action suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. He seeks to represent all California residents who used or purchased Ritalin. Notably, this plaintiff also brought a claim under the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Civil Code Section 1750, claiming that the defendants engaged in proscribed competitive practices. The plaintiff also alleged that the defendants' misrepresentation of material facts concerning Ritalin and the failure to disclose risk-related information constitute deception under the Act. Vess v. Ciba-Geigy Corp. (S.D. Cal. [No. 00 CV 1839], filed September 13, 2000).Google Scholar
“News reports,” Psychiatric News, 35, no. 19 (2000): 2.Google Scholar
Accardo, P., “Ritalin, Parents, and the Media,” Clinical Psychiatry News, 28, no. 10 (2000): 10.Google Scholar
Fulton, D., “Class Action Suits Over Ritalin Filed Against APA,” Clinical Psychiatry News, 28, no. 10 (2000): 1, 5.Google Scholar
American Academy of Pediatrics, Committee on Quality Improvement, Subcommittee on Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder, “Diagnosis and Evaluation of the Child With Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder,” Pediatrics, 105, no. 5 (2000): 1158–70.Google Scholar