This case was a wrongful death claim arising out of the death of Janice DiCosolo due to her use of a defective fentanyl pain patch designed, manufactured and marketed by Defendants. After the DiCosolo family obtained an $18.5 judgment, the Defendants appealed. They claim that the verdict was excessive, that Plaintiff’s counsel made an improper closing argument, that the trial court erred in excluding evidence of other drugs the decedent may have taken and that the Plaintiff failed to prove the existence of a non-specific defect. The Court of Appeals rejected all of the Defendants’ argument and affirmed the judgment. The Defendants then appealed to the Illinois Supreme Court by filing a Petition for Leave to Appeal. This Brief is the response to that Petition.

This case was a wrongful death claim arising out of the death of Janice DiCosolo due to her use of a defective fentanyl pain patch designed, manufactured and marketed by Defendants. After the DiCosolo family obtained an 418.5 judgment, the Defendants appealed. They claims that the verdict was excessive, that Plaintiff’s counsel made an improper closing argument, that the trial court erred in excluding evidence of other drugs the decedent may have taken and that the Plaintiff failed to prove the existence of a non-specific defect. The Court of Appeals rejected all of the Defendants’ argument and affirmed the judgment.

This brief was filed in California state court in response to a motion filed by the defendants in a fentanyl pain patch case seeking a stay or dismissal of the action under the doctrine of forum non conveneins. The defendants argued that the case should be dismissed or stayed because it involved the death of a Michigan resident that occurred in Michigan allegedly as a result of the patient’s use of a fentanyl pain patch prescribed, purchased and used in Michigan. Under Michigan law, the plaintiff would have had no cause of action because Michigan does not recognize product liability claims against pharmaceutical manufacturers. Plaintiff responded that the defendant that manufactured the patch had its principal place of business in California and actually designed and manufactured the patch in California. Plaintiff argued that the balance of the public and private interest factors favored maintaining the suit in California. The court agreed and denied the defendants’ motion.

This brief was filed in California state court in response to a motion filed by the defendants in a fentanyl pain patch case seeking a stay or dismissal of the action under the doctrine of forum non conveneins. The defendants argued that the case should be dismissed or stayed because it involved the death of a Michigan resident that occurred in Michigan allegedly as a result of the patient’s use of a fentanyl pain patch prescribed, purchased and used in Michigan. Under Michigan law, the plaintiff would have had no cause of action because Michigan does not recognize product liability claims against pharmaceutical manufacturers. Plaintiff responded that the defendant that manufactured the patch had its principal place of business in California and actually designed and manufactured the patch in California. Plaintiff argued that the balance of the public and private interest factors favored maintaining the suit in California.

This brief was filed in California state court in response to a motion filed by the defendants in a fentanyl pain patch case seeking a stay or dismissal of the action under the doctrine of forum non conveneins. The defendants argued that the case should be dismissed or stayed because it involved the death of a North Carolina resident that occurred in North Carolina allegedly as a result of the patient’s use of a fentanyl pain patch prescribed, purchased and used in North Carolina. Plaintiff responded that the defendant that manufactured the patch had its principal place of business in California and actually designed and manufactured the patch in California. Plaintiff argued that the balance of the public and private interest factors favored maintaining the suit in California. The court agreed and denied the defendants’ motion.