The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

P was 33 years old and pregnant with her sixth child. Her health was good. She had no known risk factors for coronary disease; she had no family history of heart disease, was not a smoker, was not overweight, was relatively young, and had very low (indeed, 'protective') cholesterol levels. Neither during the pregnancy nor the delivery did she experience any hypertension, and she had no history of high blood pressure. After giving birth, she decided not to breastfeed, so, pursuant to a standing order of her obstetrician for non-breast feeding mothers, she was given 2.5 mg of, twice daily for fourteen days, to suppress lactation. P had taken Parlodel before in connection with some or all of her five prior deliveries. P began to experience chest pain and was rushed to the emergency room. She had suffered an acute myocardial infarction of the anterior wall of her left ventricle. P was ordered to avoid Parlodel. P sued D and D moved for summary judgment based on medical causation. P's trial experts expressed the opinion that the Parlodel caused or contributed to the arterial spasm that caused her heart attack.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.