Himes v Somatics LLC

On 20 June 2024 the California Supreme Court issued a judgment in the case of Himes v Somatics LLC that means that the plaintiff’s case against the manufacturers of ECT machines for having caused her brain damage can continue.

Judge Grobner wrote:

“A plaintiff is not required to show that a stronger warning would have altered the physician’s decision to prescribe the product to establish causation. Instead, a plaintiff may establish causation by showing that the physician would have communicated the stronger warning to the patient and an objectively prudent person in the patient’s position would have thereafter declined the treatment.”

The judgment can be read here.

A lower court had rejected Himes’ case after her psychiatrist testified that he would have still prescribed ECT even if the machine manufacturers had issued a stronger warning about the possibility of brain damage. The case was appealed on the grounds that, notwithstanding the psychiatrist’s recommendation, a stronger warning would have led to the patient declining the treatment. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals then referred the matter to the California Supreme Court to decide whether that argument could succeed under California law.

After the ruling of the California Supreme Court, Himes’ attorney, Bijan Esfandiari of Wisner Baum, said of the ruling: “Today’s decision in Himes is not only a victory for consumers injured by defective pharmaceuticals and medical devices but is a victory for anyone who champions patient autonomy.”