Hernandez v. Ciba-Geigy Corp. USA

Hernandez v. Ciba-Geigy Corp. USA
No. CIV.A. B-00-82 (S.D. Tex. May 17, 2001)

The parents of children diagnosed
with Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD) or Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
(ADHD) and treated with Ritalin, sued the drug’s manufacturer, the American
Psychiatric Association (APA), and Children and Adults with Attention Deficit
Hyperactivity Disorder (CHADD) claiming that the diagnosis for ADD/ADHD is overly
broad for the express purpose of increasing Ritalin prescriptions. The parents
sued on a variety of fraud, conspiracy, and failure to warn theories. The Southern
District Court of Texas granted the defendants’ motions for dismissal based
on the plaintiffs’ failures to plead with particularity and to show injury.

The parents argued that
Novartis, the manufacturer of Ritalin, used their financial influence to broaden
the definition of ADD/ADHD in order to increase sales. The parents believed
that their children were misdiagnosed and given unnecessary medication. Additionally,
the parents claimed that if the APA and CHADD had disclosed their financial
relationship with Novartis, they would not have accepted their childrens’ diagnoses
and Ritalin prescriptions. The defendants moved to dismiss the case arguing
that in both the original and amended complaints, the parents failed to properly
plead a valid claim.

The court ruled that mere
legal conclusions are not enough to withstand a motion to dismiss. The court
noted that the parents did not cite to any statements by Novartis, the APA,
or CHADD which impacted their decision to accept the Ritalin prescriptions.
The court also ruled that the parents did not show how their children suffered
injury. Therefore dismissal was appropriate in this case.