The Supreme Court has struck out a personal injuries action brought by Joan Bernadette Keogh against the manufacturers of the prescription anxiety drug Ativan after proceedings remained unresolved for more than 16 years.
Keogh began taking Ativan in 1979 after it was prescribed by her GP for anxiety and panic attacks. She continued until 1984, when she became aware through a television programme of allegations that some people experienced difficulties with the drug. She claimed that attempts to reduce her dosage caused serious withdrawal symptoms, including panic attacks, depression, poor memory and difficulty leaving her home alone.
In proceedings issued in January 1989, Keogh alleged that Wyeth Laboratories Incorporated and John Wyeth & Brother Limited had been negligent because they knew Ativan could be addictive but failed to give adequate warnings to patients or prescribing doctors. Those allegations had not been determined at trial.
The pharmaceutical companies sought to have the case dismissed because of delay. The High Court found the delay inordinate and, from February 1996 onwards, inexcusable, but nevertheless allowed the case to continue because it considered the balance of justice favoured Keogh.
The Supreme Court disagreed.
Mr Justice McCracken said the defendants faced real evidential difficulties because the case concerned events beginning in 1979. The psychiatrist first consulted by Keogh was unavailable, while former company employees who might have been able to give evidence about what was known and communicated about Ativan more than 20 years earlier might also no longer be available.
The court also noted that discovery had been available since February 1996, yet no documents had been inspected on Keogh’s behalf for more than five years.
McCracken J. said the size of the defendant pharmaceutical companies did not lessen their entitlement to procedural fairness. The Supreme Court allowed their appeal and struck out Keogh’s claim.
The ruling ended these proceedings without deciding whether Ativan caused Keogh’s alleged injuries or whether the manufacturers had failed in any duty to warn.