Pennsylvania Record

Wednesday, October 16, 2019

Parents suing antidepressant manufacturer for daughter's birth defects seek to end litigation

By Nicholas Malfitano | Feb 12, 2016

Wolters Kluwer

PHILADELPHIA – Biological parents of a minor child born with birth defects allegedly as a result of her mother’s use of an antidepressant drug who sued the drug’s manufacturers have filed a motion to discontinue the litigation entirely.

Eric H. Weitz submitted the motion to the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas on behalf of Elexie Davis and Jamar Cooper of Red Bank, N.J., to discontinue without prejudice their litigation against Wolters Kluwer U.S. Inc. of Harrisburg, Wolters Kluwer Health Inc. in Philadelphia, Medi-Span in Indianapolis, Ind. and Lexi-Comp, Inc. in Hudson, Ohio.

In the case of actions with a minor party involved, the Court must consider the best interest of the minor and the possible risk of unreasonable prejudice to the defendant. Further, discontinuance can be granted where the minor in question can refile the suit at a later time, and where there has been little or no activity in the case.

In this lawsuit, limited written discovery and only one deposition has taken place, according to Weitz – and thus Kamora Davis would not be affected by the discontinuance of the suit.

In a Dec. 16 response motion, defense counsel from Reed Smith expressed no opposition to the plaintiffs’ motion to discontinue.

A hearing in this matter was set for Thursday in Court chambers, at Philadelphia City Hall.

Kamora Davis was born with heart defects and other congenital birth defects, from what her mother alleged was her own use of antidepressant drug Citalopram, during her pregnancy. Kamora was represented in the prospective litigation by her biological parents, Elexie and Jamar.

Elexie initially claimed the defendants breached their duty of care by failing to warn of these side effects and birth defects in the patient education monograph. The plaintiffs say they incurred medical, nursing, hospital, pharmacy, rehabilitative and related costs and expenses for Kamora’s, for which they believed they were entitled to compensation.

In the original litigation, the plaintiffs levied counts of negligence, strict product liability – defective design, strict product liability – failure to warn, fraud/misrepresentation and suppression, breach of express and implied warranties, gross negligence/malice and loss of consortium/pecuniary loss.

The plaintiffs had initially been seeking damages in excess of $50,000 in compensatory and punitive damages, plus delay damages and costs.

The plaintiffs are represented by Weitz of Messa & Associates, in Philadelphia.

The defendants are represented by Karl Barnickol of Neal Gerber Eisenberg in Chicago and Barbara R. Binis, Rachel B. Weil and Michael Salimbene, all of Reed Smith in Philadelphia.

Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas case 140304266

From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at

Want to get notified whenever we write about ?

Sign-up Next time we write about , we'll email you a link to the story. You may edit your settings or unsubscribe at any time.

More News