Health Law Daily Wrap Up, DRUGS AND BIOLOGICS—E.D. Pa.: AbbVie wins dismissal of inmate’s claims arising from Lexapro-induced night terrors, (Aug 7, 2026)

By Pankhuri Bhatnagar, B.A. LL.B.

The inmate’s claims relating to a fatal 2021 shooting were time-barred under Pennsylvania’s two-year statute of limitations for personal injury claims, and the discovery rule did not apply.

A man brought suit against a pharmaceutical manufacturer, alleging that his prescribed anti-depression medication induced night terrors which caused him to fatally shoot and injure his family members and later fall from a prison bunk bed. A federal district court in Pennsylvania dismissed with prejudice the claims arising from the 2021 shooting, granted the manufacturer’s motion for a more definite statement as to the 2023 prison injury claims, and denied his discovery motion as premature. The court found that the inmate failed to exercise reasonable diligence in investigating the cause of his night terrors, which began in 2021; failed to identify any cognizable negligence theory; did not explain how the manufacturer breached any duty or caused the alleged injuries; and made allegations that were too vague to permit a meaningful response (Vilayphunh v. AbbVie, Inc., No. 25-cv-4478 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 3, 2026)).

Background. A man was prescribed Lexapro (escitalopram) in July 2020 to treat his depression and anxiety. Although the medication allegedly improved his depression, he began experiencing occasional night terrors, which progressively worsened and were accompanied by agitation, confusion, hallucinations, blurred vision, memory problems, mood swings, muscle twitching, rapid heartbeat, and suicidal thoughts. In July 2021, while allegedly sleepwalking during a severe night terror, he fatally shot his brother and seriously injured his father before regaining consciousness in police custody. He was later convicted of third-degree murder, first-degree assault, and aggravated assault on a police officer and sentenced to imprisonment. While incarcerated, he continued taking Lexapro at the highest prescribed dosage and alleged that he continued experiencing severe night terrors. In September 2023, he claimed to have suffered another night terror, fell from the top bunk of his prison bed, and fractured his collarbone. He started suspecting his medication’s role in producing his night terrors and discussed the matter with a psychiatrist, who switched his medication. The night terrors ceased after the discontinuation of Lexapro. He accordingly brought suit against the medicine manufacturer, AbbVie, Inc., based on the shooting and fall incidents, and sought $28 million in damages. AbbVie moved to dismiss the claims relating to the 2021 shooting as untimely and sought a more definite statement regarding the 2023 prison injury claims. The inmate separately moved for discovery.

Legal standard. Under 28 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5524(7), Pennsylvania applies a two-year statute of limitations to personal injury and pharmaceutical product liability claims, which begins to run as soon as the right to institute and maintain a suit arises. Barnes v. American Tobacco Co., 161 F.3d 127, 152 (3d Cir. 1998). Lack of knowledge, mistake, or misunderstanding do not toll the running of the statute, but the discovery rule may delay its running “where the plaintiff is reasonably unaware that he has been injured and that his injury has been caused by another party’s conduct.” Nicolaou v. Martin, 195 A.3d 880, 892-93 (Pa. 2018). “[T]he question is not what the plaintiff actually knew of the injury or its cause, but what he might have known by exercising the diligence required by law.”

Shooting incident. The court concluded that the inmate's claims arising from the July 2021 shooting were untimely. Although he alleged that he did not suspect Lexapro caused his night terrors until January 2024, his own complaint established that the night terrors began shortly after he started the medication in 2021, progressively worsened, and culminated in an extraordinarily serious incident in which he fatally shot one family member and seriously injured another. The severity of that incident was sufficient to trigger a duty to investigate the cause of the night terrors by consulting a physician or psychiatrist. But the inmate did not raise the issue with a psychiatrist until January 2024, and he filed the suit in July 2025. Thus, “reasonable minds could not differ as to [his] lack of reasonable diligence” where he “waited four years before diligently pursuing the cause of his illness.” Cochran v. GAF Corp., 666 A.2d 245, 250 (Pa. 1995). Public records reflected that the man’s mental state, as affected by his medication, was at issue in his criminal trial, demonstrating that an obligation to exercise reasonable diligence was triggered more than two years before he initiated this lawsuit. His own cited exhibits during the instant lawsuit included a 2007 Physician’s Desk Reference showing an increase in incidents of somnolence for patients taking Lexapro, bolstering the conclusion that the inmate could have discovered the cause of his injury with reasonable diligence if he had addressed his night terrors with a medical professional after the shooting. Accordingly, the discovery rule did not apply, and his claims were dismissed as time-barred.

Prison injury. AbbVie next argued that the allegations concerning the 2023 bunk-bed fall were too vague to permit a responsive pleading because the complaint failed to identify any legal theory or any negligent conduct by the manufacturer. The court agreed. In Pennsylvania, prescription drug manufacturers cannot be held strictly liable for injuries allegedly caused by prescription medications. Lance v. Wyeth, 85 A.3d 434, 453-60 (Pa. 2014). Rather, such claims must proceed under negligence principles requiring allegations that the manufacturer owed a duty, breached that duty, caused the injury, and thereby inflicted damages. The complaint, however, merely alleged that AbbVie distributed Lexapro and failed to identify whether the claimed negligence involved defective design, manufacturing, inadequate warnings, or any other actionable conduct. Further, the forum follows the learned intermediary doctrine, but the complaint did not explain how AbbVie's warnings to the prescribing physicians were inadequate or how any deficiency caused the inmate's injuries. Nor did it clearly allege whether he received AbbVie's branded product or a generic version, a fact potentially relevant to whether AbbVie owed him any legal duty. Because the complaint failed to provide sufficient factual allegations placing the manufacturer on notice of the precise negligence theory asserted, the court granted the motion for a more definite statement and allowed the man to file a second amended complaint limited to the 2023 incident.

Discovery. Finally, under Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 686 (2009), discovery is unavailable until a claimant first states a plausible claim for relief. Because the operative complaint failed to state a viable claim concerning the 2023 incident, discovery was premature. The court also rejected the inmate's request that the manufacturer obtain his prison medical records, explaining that the records were maintained by third parties rather than by AbbVie and that the manufacturer had no obligation to secure them on his behalf. Accordingly, the discovery motion was denied.

The case is No. 25-cv-4478.

Judge: Hodge, K.

Attorneys: Oudeom Vilayphunh, pro se. John R. Vales (Dentons US LLP) for AbbVie, Inc.

Companies: AbbVie, Inc.

Cases: CaseDecisions FDCActNews DrugBiologicNews PLDrugNews MassachusettsNews