Last month, the Arizona Supreme Court became the most recent state high court to recognize the “learned intermediary doctrine” (LID). The LID provides a defense to drug companies in failure-to-warn products-liability cases so long as the manufacturers provided the prescribing doctor with all required safety information. In so doing, the court joined the 36 other state high courts that have expressly adopted the LID.
The case, Watts v. Medicis Pharmaceutical Corp., arose from the plaintiff’s use of the defendant’s acne medication. The plaintiff alleged that she was not properly warned about the possible side effects of taking the medication and developed lupus, she claimed, as a result of her usage of the drug. Importantly, the plaintiff did not allege that the defendant drug company failed to provide her prescribing doctor adequate warnings, just that the company did not warn her personally. The Arizona court of appeals reversed a dismissal of the claim, holding that the LID was no longer a viable legal theory and was abrogated by statute. Continue reading
by Matthew A. Reed, Sedgwick LLP
When plaintiffs bring state tort causes of action against the manufacturers of medical devices that have passed the Food and Drug Administration’s (“FDA”) rigorous pre-market approval (“PMA”) process, they enter a realm highly regulated by the federal government, and thus face a daunting task to avoid dismissal of their claims. They must demonstrate that their state-law claims require nothing more or different of the manufacturer than what the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (“FDCA”) already requires, or else their claims are not “parallel” and thus expressly preempted by § 360k of the Medical Device Amendments (“MDA”) to the FDCA. But they also must show that their claims are based on state law distinct from the FDCA, because claims predicated on the FDCA are impliedly preempted as private attempts to enforce federal law. Continue reading
Most product-liability claims against drug manufacturers fall into one of two categories—the plaintiff alleges that his/her injury was caused by: (1) the manufacturer’s failure to include adequate safety warnings on its label; or (2) a defect in the drug’s design. In a major defeat for drug-company defendants, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2009’s Wyeth v. Levine that state-law failure-to-warn claims against brand-name drug companies are not preempted by federal law in most instances, even though (as is virtually always the case) the product bears labels approved and mandated by the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Some commentators concluded that Wyeth foreshadowed a similar rejection of preemption defenses in design-defect cases. However, a December 11, 2015 decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit suggests that those commentators likely erred; the appeals court concluded in Yates v. Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. that design-defect claims are preempted in most instances. Continue reading
The U.S. Supreme Court’s 2009 decision in Wyeth v. Levine placed significant limits on the ability of brand-name drug manufacturers to defend against failure-to-warn state tort-law claims. Even though manufacturers invariably label their products precisely as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has mandated, Wyeth held that state courts could penalize manufacturers for failing to include additional health warnings on their labels. The Court explained that it was possible for manufacturers to simultaneously comply with both FDA and state-court-determined labeling requirements because FDA’s “Changes Being Effected” (CBE) regulation permits brand-name companies to unilaterally change the FDA-mandated label and then seek FDA’s after-the-fact approval of the changes. But as the Court recognized, the CBE regulation limits the circumstances under which unilateral label changes are permissible—and when a unilateral change is not permitted, any tort claim premised on a state-law duty to make such a change is still preempted.
Unfortunately, many lower courts have failed to recognize this important limitation imposed by Wyeth on tort liability. At its January 8, 2016 conference, the U.S. Supreme Court will consider a certiorari petition that provides it with an opportunity to clear up the confusion among the lower courts regarding when federal law preempts failure-to-warn claims against the manufacturers of drugs bearing FDA-mandated labels. The Court should seize that opportunity by granting review in Johnson & Johnson v. Reckis, a case in which the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court upheld a $140 million judgment against a manufacturer of ibuprofen—a generic over-the-counter pain-relief medication sold under such brand names as Advil and Motrin. Continue reading
Matthew G. Kaiser, Partner, Kaiser, LeGrand & Dillon PLLC
A court case that should be on the radar screen of all business executives and white-collar criminal-defense attorneys in 2016 is United States v. Clay, in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit heard oral argument on October 2.
The case, about which I authored a Washington Legal Foundation Legal Backgrounder last March, implicates the fundamental question of who decides the meaning of a law—a judge or a jury? The Eleventh Circuit will also implicitly decide whether the government can cast aside more appropriate civil or administrative remedies and prosecute corporate officers operating a business in a complex regulatory environment when their interpretation of a law is objectively reasonable. Continue reading
Over the past year, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has been drafting a Guideline for Prescribing Opioids for Chronic Pain in relative secrecy, relying upon the input of a hand-picked group of advisers and a limited number of stakeholders. Such a stealth approach drew criticism from numerous interested parties, including Washington Legal Foundation, which explained in a November 17, 2015 letter to CDC that the agency’s drafting process ran afoul of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA).
This week, CDC took several unexpected steps towards greater transparency for its prescribing guideline project, implicitly conceding its prior FACA violations. The director of CDC’s National Center for Injury Prevention and Control informed WLF on December 14 of its about-face in a letter responding to our November 17 missive. That same day, CDC published a notice in the Federal Register that seeks comments on the draft guideline and also directs the public to numerous previously-unreleased documents. In addition, CDC announced that it will ask a federal advisory committee, its Board of Scientific Counselors, to review the draft guideline and public comments and make recommendations to the agency. Continue reading
In introducing an October 7, 2015 oversight hearing on the forthcoming 2015 Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGA), House Agriculture Committee Chairman Michael Conaway stated, “It is essential that the guidance that comes out of this process can be trusted by the American people.” Chairman Conaway framed that remark in the context of the scientific evidence the 2015 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC) relied upon in its Scientific Report. Lawmakers should question the quality of the report’s science, but their probe of the DGAC and its work shouldn’t stop there. Another, perhaps greater, threat to the Dietary Guidelines’ credibility is the significant breaches of federal law that occurred in the creation of the DGAC. Violations of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) infect the entire Scientific Report and call into question its recommendations and any federal regulatory proposals that rely on the report or the resulting DGA. Continue reading