Author Archives: M. Regina Phillips

Plaintiffs’ Product Case Trumped by the Learned Intermediary Doctrine

A large pharmaceutical manufacturer recently won a fundamentally important victory both within the mass tort it is facing and for all life science companies needing to rely upon the learned intermediary doctrine. In the consolidated litigation proceeding in New Jersey state court, the plaintiffs’ claim the manufacturer failed to properly warn its users of known gastro-intestinal complications associated with the drug. Relying on the learned intermediary doctrine, the judge granted the manufacturer summary judgment in some cases because the treating physicians testified they prescribed the…

Continue Reading....

Drug Promotion on Social Media By Consumers: Can It Be Regulated?

Kim Kardashian recently used social media to promote the use of a prescription drug. In her Instagram post, Ms. Kardashian told her followers that a physician recommended use of the drug Diclegis to alleviate her symptoms of morning sickness. Ms. Kardashian is not the only public figure to recently deal with morning sickness as the Duchess of Cambridge also dealt with this issue, reported here. Having experienced positive results following the use of this drug, Ms. Kardashian posted her intent to pair with the

Continue Reading....

Recent Philadelphia Verdict Highlights Need to Combat Punitive Damages

In the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, a jury recently awarded the plaintiff $2.3 million in compensatory damages for injuries he alleged arose from his use of a diabetes treatment drug.  The plaintiff claimed that the drug company failed to properly warn that its use was linked to a higher incidence of bladder cancer, a condition he subsequently developed.  In addition to awarding a compensatory sum, the jury awarded $1.3 million in punitive damages, apparently based upon evidence that the company’s pharmaceutical reps were instructed…

Continue Reading....

Alabama Supreme Court Decision Lends Support to Plaintiffs’ Innovator Liability Theory

It is a bedrock principle of the American legal system that a product manufacturer is typically not held responsible for an injury to a plaintiff when that manufacturer’s product was not used.  In other words, if a plaintiff was injured while using Product A, the manufacturer of Product B cannot be responsible. This common-sense rule has been challenged over the years by various plaintiffs’ theories, and one of those efforts – the so-called “innovator liability” theory – recently gained a bit more traction in a…

Continue Reading....