High Court’s Cert Denial Should Put an End to Novel Anti-Preemption Claim in Medical-Device Suits

ReedGuest Commentary

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

Supreme Court’s First 2016 Conference Yields Positive Results for Free-Enterprise Advocates—and Reason to Hope for More

supreme courtThe U.S. Supreme Court held its first Conference of 2016 on Friday, January 8, where it considered cert petitions in several high-profile cases impacting free enterprise. The Court issued an orders list on January 11 from that Conference, which, while it did not include any cert grants in these cases, potentially offers positive results for free-market enthusiasts.

First, the Court issued a CVSG in State Farm v. U.S. ex. rel. Rigsby. For those not versed in Supreme Court-speak, CVSG=Calling for the Views of the Solicitor General. The U.S. government is not a party in Rigsby, but because the case involves a key federal law, the False Claims Act (FCA), the justices want to give the government a chance to weigh in with a yay or nay on cert before deciding. It takes the vote of four justices—the same number it takes to grant cert—for the Court to seek the Solicitor General’s views. A CVSG is thus a very good sign that the Court has an elevated interest in a case. Continue reading

The Supreme Court’s NOT Top 10: October 2013 Term Cases the Justices Wrongly Passed Over

supreme courtThe Supreme Court press and other court observers have spilled a lot of ink this past month discussing the cases the Supreme Court took and decided during October Term 2013. Relatively little was said about the cases the court chose not to decide—and it passed over some doozies. But as Rush drummer and lyricist Neil Peart put it so eloquently, “If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.”

Pro-Business? Journalists like to portray the Roberts Court as particularly business friendly (see, e.g., here , here, and here; but see here), but businesses asked the Court to take plenty of cases this past term that it instead declined. When the Court denies cert in cases of such importance to business at the same time that it has a historically light docket, it can hardly be said to be pro-business. Companies crave legal certainty, so even if the Court took these cases and decided them against business interests, many times simply settling contested questions would be better than leaving them up in the air.

Wanted: More Business Cases. The Court needs to hear more business cases than it currently is, for at least two reasons. First, the unprecedented proliferation of new regulations by this administration has given rise to many more conflicts of the kind that produce Supreme Court cases. Second, to the extent the Clinton-and-Obama-appointee-dominated lower courts are predisposed against business litigants (or, more charitably, deciding close questions consistently against them), businesses will appeal more cases to the Supreme Court when they believe a lower court has denied them justice. Of course the Supreme Court justices take neither of these criteria into consideration when assessing individual cases, but surely these factors matter when assessing whether the Court leans in favor of business in forming its docket. Continue reading

Pharmaceutical Association’s Blog Features WLF Guest Post on U.S. v. Caronia, One Year Later Program

The blog of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), The Catalyst, published a guest post from Washington Legal Foundation on Friday, January 31, Greater Clarity Needed Regarding What Scientific Information Biopharmaceutical Companies Can Communicate to Healthcare Providers.

The post, which features a foreword by PhRMA General Counsel Mit Spears, recounts the content of a January 16 WLF Media Briefing, U.S. v. Caronia, One Year Later: The First Amendment And Federal Oversight Of Off-Label Drug And Device.

The briefing can be viewed in its entirety by clicking on the title above.

Welcome to “Sorrellonia”!: WLF Seminar Assesses Off-Label Drug Speech Ruling

PodiumPic1Off-Label Speech After U.S. v. Caronia: Implications for Drug & Device Regulation and the First Amendment, a Washington Legal Foundation Web Seminar program, is now available for on-demand viewing.

Our program featured analysis and commentary from Coleen Klasmeier of the Sidley Austin law firm and WLF’s Chief Counsel, Richard Samp. Coleen and Rich make reference to a Powerpoint slide deck, which due to a technical problem wasn’t available to viewers during the program.  The slide deck can be downloaded here.

For her presentation, Coleen coined the term “Sorrellonia” because the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit two-judge majority in Caronia became the first court to fully apply the holding and rationale of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2011 Sorrell v. IMS Health opinion.

Coleen’s and Rich’s presentations drew upon their combined years of experience in dealing with FDA’s application of its off-label speech restrictions and the Justice Department’s prosecution of cases where criminal violations of those rules allegedly occurred.

While they both saw great promise in the opinion for greater freedom in the exchange of critical medical information, they also offered firm notes of caution that the ruling not be interpreted as a green light for businesses’ promotion of off-label uses. Great peril still exists in this area they warned, a fact that is all the more apparent today with the announcement of another nearly $1 billion Justice Department settlement with a pharmaceutical company.

Judges Help Lawyers Circumvent SCOTUS Generic Drug Preemption Ruling

Guest Commentary

by Kelly Day Savage, Sedgwick LLP*

Many commentators (including this one) correctly predicted that savvy plaintiffs and sympathetic courts would create exceptions to the Supreme Court’s decision in PLIVA, Inc. v. Mensing, 131 S. Ct. 2567 (2011)– that state-law tort claims against manufacturers of generic drugs based on insufficient product warnings are preempted by federal law–to permit plaintiffs to recover damages in otherwise barred actions.

In Whitener v. PLIVA, Inc., No. 10-1552, 2012 WL 3948797, at *4 (E.D. La. Sept. 10, 2012), the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana created yet another legal loophole by permitting “a state-law tort claim based on alleged promotion of metoclopramide [the generic version of Reglan] for off-label purposes in violation of federal law” to escape preemption on defendants’ motion to dismiss. Continue reading

State Attorneys General Step to the Fore on Off-Label Drug “Promotion”

Cross-posted at WLF’s Forbes.com Contributor blog

With their law enforcement counterparts at the federal level raking in prodigious financial settlements, it’s no surprise that state attorneys general (“state AGs”) want a bigger piece of the action on off-label drug “promotion” regulation. The $181 million settlement reached August 29 between 36 attorneys general and a drug maker confirmed that state AGs must indeed be reckoned with on off-label issues. What will get medical product companies’ attention is not the financial settlement, though. The real eye-opener was the precision of the settlement’s conduct requirements, most notably one restraint on speech which goes beyond the dictates of federal law.

The settlement arose from “deceptive marketing” suits filed by state AGs throughout the country involving Ripersdal. Some of those suits resulted in verdicts imposing six- or seven-figure damages on the defendant, Janssen Pharmaceuticals. Janssen and its parent company, Johnson & Johnson (J&J), had appealed those verdicts, but the cost-benefit calculus of fighting vs. settling likely led the companies to resolve the claims on a global basis (much like the tobacco companies did with the state AGs).

In addition to the monetary settlement, Janssen and J&J agreed to conditions and limitations on how they share information about Ripersdal with medical professionals. As noted above and emphasized by former FDA associate chief counsel Arnie Fried in a Pharmalot interview, such behavior-changing dictates were what the AGs were really after here. Continue reading