Earlier this summer, Eli Lilly & Co. failed in their attempt to dismiss a Prozac heart birth defect lawsuit filed by a mother in Alabama federal court.

The plaintiff claims that she took the prescription antidepressant Prozac during her pregnancy, and as a result it caused her son to be born with cardiac (or heart) birth defect.

In July, U.S. District Judge Keith Watkins denied the pharmaceutical company’s motion for summary judgment in this birth defect lawsuit, ruling that there is a general disagreement among the parties regarding plaintiff Dana F.’s use of the Eli Lilly antidepressant.

Furthermore, the judge found that Dana is able to provide factual causation of her child’s condition and the mother’s use of Prozac by demonstrating that her prescribing doctor, who is now deceased, would have issued a different prescription had Lilly issued a stronger warning concerning Prozac birth defects.

According to the Prozac heart birth defect lawsuit, Dana took the antidepressant medication during the first eight months of her pregnancy, which occurred in 1996. In her complaint, she alleges her son was born with a heart birth defect known as Tetralogy of Fallot, which causes the organ to mix oxygenated blood with deoxygenated blood.

Dana originally filed this Prozac lawsuit back in January 2013, alleging that the drug’s manufacturer did not provide adequate warnings about the alleged Prozac side effects and birth defects risks associated with the drug.

In their bid for summary motion, Eli Lilly argued that Dana could not provide sufficient evidence to support her claims that she actively took the antidepressant during her pregnancy.

According to Lilly’s motion to dismiss this Prozac heart birth defect lawsuit:

“Based upon the lack of physical evidence, Lilly argues that the self-serving testimony offered by [Dana] and her husband is insufficient to raise a genuine dispute of material fact on an essential element of her causes of action, namely, ‘proof of use of the product at issue.’”

However, Judge Watkins ruled that although the plaintiff’s claims may be self-serving, this does not prevent her from making these claims at this stage of the litigation.

Eli Lilly also argued that there was no way Dana could adequately support a “failure to warn” claim in this birth defect lawsuit, since the physician who originally prescribed her the medication died a few years before the suit was brought to court.

Because of a lack of the doctor’s personal testimony, Eli Lilly argues Dana cannot demonstrate that her physician would have had a different opinion on the drug and her use of it during pregnancy if a birth defects risks warning had been included on the label.

However, Dana shot back that she could offer “subjective evidence” concerning “customs and practices” of her now-deceased doctor based on the testimony of a nurse who worked with Dana’s physician for about 12 years. Judge Watkins ruled in favor of the plaintiff and will allow to keep pursuing her failure to warn claims.

The Prozac Heart Birth Defect Lawsuit is Case No. 2:13-cv-00035, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama.