## Facts

- Pregnant patients received prenatal care at the University of Chicago’s Lying-In Hospital between September 29, 1950, and November 20, 1952.
- The University of Chicago and Eli Lilly conducted a double-blind clinical study administering diethylstilbestrol (DES) to test whether it prevented miscarriages.
- Plaintiffs alleged they were not told they were research subjects and were not told the pills administered were DES.
- Plaintiffs alleged DES exposure during pregnancy caused their children to develop reproductive tract abnormalities, abnormal cervical cellular formations, and increased risk of vaginal or cervical cancer, and caused plaintiffs emotional distress and anxiety.
- Plaintiffs alleged the DES–cancer association was known to the medical community by 1971, but defendants did not notify participants until late 1975 or 1976, when the University sent letters describing potential risks to offspring and seeking information to contact children for examination.
- Plaintiffs sued on behalf of themselves and similarly situated women, asserting battery, strict products liability, and negligence based on delayed notification.

## Issues

1. Whether administering DES in a double-blind experiment without informing patients they were research subjects or that they received DES states a claim for battery under Illinois law.
2. Whether plaintiffs stated a strict products liability claim for DES-related harm absent allegations of present physical injury to the plaintiffs themselves.
3. Whether plaintiffs stated a claim based on failure to notify of DES risks and study participation when alleged damages were emotional distress and increased risk without present physical injury to the plaintiffs.

## Decision

- On defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motions, the court denied dismissal of the battery claim.
- The court dismissed the strict products liability claim.
- The court dismissed the failure-to-notify (post-study disclosure) claim.

## Legal Principles

- Under Illinois law, intentional administration of a substance without valid consent can constitute battery when the contact is unauthorized; lack of knowledge that one is a research subject and lack of consent to experimental administration may support the claim.
- A claim framed as nonconsensual experimentation may proceed as battery rather than as a negligence-based informed-consent theory where the complaint alleges no consent to the nature of the contact itself.
- Illinois strict products liability requires allegations of present personal physical injury (or cognizable property damage) to the plaintiff; increased risk and distress tied to injuries primarily alleged in others do not satisfy this requirement.
- Negligence-based claims seeking damages for emotional distress and increased risk, without accompanying present physical injury to the plaintiff, are insufficient under the pleaded theory.

## Conclusion

The court permitted plaintiffs to proceed on a battery theory based on alleged nonconsensual participation in a DES experiment, but rejected strict liability and delayed-notification theories because the complaint did not allege present physical injury to the women themselves, relying instead on increased risk and emotional distress tied to harms alleged in their children.


Mink v. Univ. of Chi., 460 F. Supp. 713 (N.D. Ill. 1978)