Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-07-01126/USCOURTS-ca8-07-01126-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-1126

___________

Richard J. Medalie, *

*

Plaintiff – Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the District of

* Minnesota.

Bayer Corporation; Bayer AG; *

GlaxoSmithKline PLC; SmithKline *

Beecham Corporation, *

*

Defendants – Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: October 18, 2007

Filed: December 28, 2007

___________

Before RILEY, MELLOY, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

MELLOY, Circuit Judge.

The plaintiff, Richard J. Medalie, brought suit under the Medicare Secondary

Payer statute (the “MSP”) against the drug companies that developed, manufactured,

and marketed the drug Baycol. See 42 U.S.C. § 1395y(b)(3)(A) (establishing a private

cause of action). Medalie sought to recover all of Medicare’s expenditures made to

diagnose and treat the personal injuries and adverse effects to Medicare beneficiaries

resulting from use of Baycol. Medalie alleged in his complaint that he took Baycol,

suffered injuries, and incurred medical costs that Medicare covered. Medalie did not

seek damages on his own behalf, but only for the United States.

Appellate Case: 07-1126 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/28/2007 Entry ID: 3386555
1

The Honorable Michael J. Davis, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota.

-2-

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred Medalie’s case to the

district court1

 for coordinated pretrial proceedings along with thousands of other cases

involving injuries caused by Baycol. In a pretrial order applicable to all the cases, the

district court required that each plaintiff submit a case-specific report from a medical

expert attesting that Baycol caused injury or damage. If a plaintiff did not comply

with the order by the stated deadline, the district court dismissed that plaintiff’s case

with prejudice. Twice Medalie requested clarification that the order did not apply to

his claim under the MSP statute. In the alternative, Medalie sought to amend his

complaint to delete any reference to his personal injuries. Medalie received no

response from the district court and filed no expert’s report. The district court

dismissed his case. This appeal followed.

Standing is a “threshold inquiry” and “jurisdictional prerequisite that must be

resolved before reaching the merits of a suit.” City of Clarkson Valley v. Mineta, 495

F.3d 567, 569 (8th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation omitted). The constitutional

minimum of standing requires an “injury in fact,” “a causal connection between the

injury and the conduct complained of,” and a likelihood “the injury will be redressed

by a favorable decision.” Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61

(1992) (internal quotations omitted). “Since [the standing elements] are not mere

pleading requirements but rather an indispensable part of the plaintiff’s case, each

element must be supported in the same way as any other matter on which the plaintiff

bears the burden of proof, i.e., with the manner and degree of evidence required at the

successive stages of the litigation.” Id. at 561.

Medalie failed to comply with the discovery order to submit an expert’s report

attesting personal injuries from use of Baycol. He also requested leave to amend his

complaint to remove any allegations of personal injuries. If we were addressing the

Appellate Case: 07-1126 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/28/2007 Entry ID: 3386555
-3-

threshold issue of standing based only on the complaint, we might conclude that

Medalie has standing. As quoted above, however, standing must be proved “with the

manner and degree of evidence required at the successive stages of the litigation.” Id.

Here, the litigation has progressed, and the district court ordered the submission of

experts’ reports attesting to the presence of injury caused by Baycol. Because

Medalie failed to submit such a report, he failed to meet the evidentiary burden

necessary to show standing during the discovery stage of the litigation.

Medalie argues that no showing of injury is required because the MSP is a qui

tam statute. We rejected this argument in Stalley v. Catholic Health Initiatives, Nos.

06-3884, 06-4121, 2007 WL 4165751 (8th Cir. Nov. 27, 2007), when we held that

“the private right of action provided by 42 U.S.C. § 1395y(b)(3)(A) is not a qui tam

statute, and [a plaintiff], who is a volunteer and who lacks any injury in fact, does not

have standing to pursue such an action.” Id. at *8. The MSP “allows a private

plaintiff to assert his own rights, not those of the government.” Id. at *4. 

We affirm the district court’s dismissal of the complaint.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 07-1126 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/28/2007 Entry ID: 3386555