The Southern District of Illinois delivered a giant lump of coal when it denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment in a Zometa case last week. In Rutz v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 177779 (S.D. Ill. Dec. 17, 2012), plaintiff claimed that his decedent developed bisphosphonate-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (“BRONJ”) after taking Zometa for 3 years while undergoing treatment for breast cancer. In considering defendant’s summary judgment motion, the court looked first at the evidence on specific causation, then considered the evidence on warnings. Because the warnings discussion is the most troubling - and basically obviates the need for a specific causation discussion – we’ll look at the court’s warnings analysis first.