Woman Sues Drug Firm in Dalkon Shield Case

Danny Barkin

Cavalier Daily

Cavalier Daily

1975-09-05

Cavalier Daily

Woman Sues Drug Firm in Dalkon Shield Case
By Danny Barkin
A University student suing a Richmond pharmacuetical [sic] firm for $600,000 claims she was the victim of a defective birth control device which led her to having a partial hysterectomy.
Christina Osequeda, 24, contended in the suit filed Tuesday in Albemarle County Circuit Court that the device, called the Dalkon Shield, caused an infection which forced her operation.
Manufactured and marketed by the defendant, A.H. Robbins Co. of Richmond, the device is worn by about 2.5 million women nationwide, according to a company spokesman.
The suit said the shield was implanted surgically by University Student Health doctors in August, 1971, and later removed at University Hospital.
In September 1974, complications caused by the shield forced the removal of the woman’s right ovary, right fallopian tube, and a portion of her uterus, the suit added.
The woman, a University graduate education student and a teacher at a local high school, is asking $300,000 compensatory and $300,000 punitive damages.
Her suit is the most recent of some 320 similar actions nationwide by women who have used the firm’s shield.
A company spokesman said yesterday the shield was removed from the market June, 1974 pending completion of a Food and Drug Administration study of intrauterine birth control devices in general, and the Dalkon Shield in particular.
The firm got the go-ahead for marketing the device from the FDA in December, 1974 the spokesman added, but decided several weeks ago to permanently remove the device from the market.
The spokesman cited marketing delays and the adverse publicity stemming from malfunctioning shields as the reason for the permanent removal.
The nine-count suit maintains the Robbins firm was negligent in “failing to test, investigate, study, research and or evaluate” the shield.
As a a result of the defective shield, the suit alleged, “the patient suffered severe and permanent injuries.”
The suit also contended the company should have known that the device “was dangerous to human life and health.
The company spokesman said yesterday that of about 46 deaths attributed to intrauterine devices, 14 had been linked to the shield.
The suit also claims that the firm was negligent in marketing the shield as fit and safe for use. Developing and marketing the shield, the suit adds, was in violation of the federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic act.
Charlottesville Attorney E. Gerald Tremblay, the woman’s lawyer, said yesterday that no action was contemplated by his client against University Hospital, since, to his knowledge, the doctors who implanted the device did not believe the device would harm her, he said.