This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Apr. 21, 2016

Sonja S. Weissman

See more on Sonja S. Weissman

Reed Smith LLP | San Francisco

As manager of the firm's global relationship with client GlaxoSmithKline LLC, Weissman was on the firing line when 52 plaintiffs born in the 1950s or early 1960s sued over claims their birth defects were caused by Thalidomide, a drug used in clinical trials by predecessor Smith Kline & French until its dangers were understood.

"It's been a really interesting engagement, with really sympathetic plaintiffs suffering unusual and severe birth defects," said Weissman, who over two years of litigation in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania oversaw a team that obtained favorable summary judgments or dismissals of every case.

In March the 3rd U.S. Circuit of Appeals affirmed the first trial court win in the hardest-fought of the cases. "That appellate affirmance was a smackdown that made a big impression," she said.

From the first, Weissman said the facts were persuasive that her client had no liability for the plaintiffs' condition. "We knew there had to be a statute of limitations problem. These plaintiffs were in their 50s -- and information about the drug was available decades ago. Then there were the evidentiary issues. How could the plaintiffs prove they were exposed to the product?"

Thalidomide was typically taken by mothers as a morning sickness drug; their children were then born with defects. "Even if their mothers were still alive," Weissman added. "How could they prove they had ingested the drug?"

Weissman learned that extensive congressional and Food and Drug Administration investigations launched soon after the drug's dangers appeared had interviewed every physician involved in the clinical trials and identified every affected child.

None of the plaintiffs were on the resulting lists. And U.S. District Judge Paul S. Diamond of Philadelphia didn't buy the plaintiffs' expert witness affidavit regarding atypical and overlooked Thalidomide symptoms, Weissman said.

"So we had strong legal defenses," Weissman said. "And that first summary judgment got the ball rolling for us."

Weissman said she won her team's informal contest for most miles traveled taking depos. "We went to the plaintiffs out of courtesy," she said. "I zigzagged the heartland and traveled from Waterville, Maine, to Anchorage, Alaska. We showed that case after case was time-barred. After the first four of five summary judgments in our favor, the plaintiffs' firm started to panic and to offer us dismissals."

? John Roemer

#297157

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390

Send a letter to the editor:

Email: letters@dailyjournal.com