First New York Court Rejects Controversial Drug Developer Liability Rule

In a controversial 2008 decision in Conte v. Wyeth, Inc., 168 Cal. App. 4th 89 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008), a California Court of Appeals held defendant drug developer, Wyeth, Inc., liable for inadequate warnings in connection with the plaintiff’s use of a competitor’s generic version of the gastrointestinal reflux drug Reglan. The court in Conte held “the common law duty to use due care owed by a name-brand prescription drug manufacturer when providing product warnings extends not only to consumers of its own product,…
Continue reading...

First New York Court Rejects Controversial Drug Developer Liability Rule

In a controversial 2008 decision in Conte v. Wyeth, Inc., 168 Cal. App. 4th 89 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008), a California Court of Appeals held defendant drug developer, Wyeth, Inc., liable for inadequate warnings in connection with the plaintiff’s use of a competitor’s generic version of the gastrointestinal reflux drug Reglan. The court in Conte held “the common law duty to use due care owed by a name-brand prescription drug manufacturer when providing product warnings extends not only to consumers of its own product,…
Continue reading...

A Rock and a Hard Place: Court Rejects Drug Manufacturer’s Defense that Changes to the Label Required FDA Approval and Were Preempted

This week, a Florida federal court denied a drug manufacturer’s motion in limine to preclude a plaintiff’s alternative warning theory on the basis that any changes to the label required FDA approval and were preempted. Dopson-Trout v. Novartis Pharma. Corp., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135834 (M.D.Fla. Sept. 23, 2013). During her treatment for breast cancer that had metastasized to her bones, the plaintiff was infused with Aredia and then Zometa. She then had her tooth extracted, after which she began experiencing jaw pain caused…
Continue reading...

New York Federal Court Upholds “Failure to Update” Theory

For those who follow pharmaceutical litigation, the issue of preemption – as discussed primarily by the U.S. Supreme Court in PLIVA, Inc. v. Mensing and Mutual Pharmaceutical Co. v. Bartlett, as well as in a host of other state and federal court opinions – continues to be an important battleground.  Although most courts have rejected the plaintiffs’ efforts to pursue failure-to-warn claims against generic drug manufacturers, based on the generic drug makers’ federal law “duty of sameness,” under which a warning label for a…
Continue reading...