The district court has granted summary judgment (opinion pdf) for all remaining defendants as to all of plaintiffs’ remaining claims in Looney v. Moore, the lawsuit arising out of the controversial SUPPORT trial, which I last discussed here. This therefore ends the lawsuit, pending possible appeal by the plaintiffs.

Plaintiff infants include two who were randomized to the low oxygen group and survived, but suffer from “neurological issues,” and one who was randomized to the high oxygen group who developed ROP, but not permanent vision loss. In their Fifth Amended Complaint (pdf), plaintiffs alleged negligence, lack of informed consent, breach of fiduciary duty, and product liability claims against, variously, individual IRB members, the P.I., and the pulse oximeter manufacturer. What unites all of these claims is the burden on plaintiffs to show (among other things) that their injuries were caused by their participation in the trial.

The court held that plaintiffs had not created a genuine issue of material fact on that issue. To recover under Alabama law, plaintiffs had to show that participation in the trial “probably” caused their injuries. Defendants’ three experts testified that the infants’ injuries were probably caused instead by their prematurity. Plaintiffs’ only relevant expert opined merely that participating in the trial “increased the risk” that they would suffer their current injuries, which the court found to be tantamount to an opinion that the trial could “possibly” have caused their injuries, which is insufficient under Alabama law.

…

Be the first to like.

Like

Unlike