Skip to Main Content
Wexler Boley & Elgersma LLP
  • Our Firm
    • Who We Serve
      • Shareholders
      • Whistleblowers
      • Consumers
      • Businesses
      • Government Entities
    • Our Professionals
    • Working with Wexler Boley & Elgersma LLP
    • Locations
    • News
    • Careers
    • Report Your Concern
    • Testimonials
  • Practice Areas
    • Antitrust Litigation
    • Business & Commercial Litigation
    • Securities & Corporate Governance
    • Healthcare Litigation
    • Consumer Protection
    • Whistle Blower False Claims Litigation
    • Government Representation
    • Employment Litigation
  • Cases
    • Antitrust Litigation Cases
    • Business & Commercial Litigation Cases
    • Consumer Protection Cases
    • Employment Litigation Cases
    • Government Representation Cases
    • Healthcare Litigation Cases
    • Mass Tort Litigation Cases
    • Securities & Corporate Governance Cases
    • Whistle Blower False Claims Cases
  • Investigations
    • Rental Rate Antitrust Lawsuit
    • Automobile 3G Network Shutdown Lawsuit
    • Similac Toxic Infant Formula Lawsuit
    • Kid’s Castle Biometric Privacy Lawsuit
    • Contaminated Baby Food Lawsuit
    • Fatal Sportmix Pet Food Recall Class Action Lawsuit
    • Claire’s Data Breach Lawsuit
    • Insurance Denial for Mental Health and Substance Abuse Treatment
    • Perpetual Sales Litigation
    • Railroad Price-Fixing Lawsuit
    • Medicare Advantage Fraud Litigation
    • Biometric Fingerprinting Litigation
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
See all blog posts
1.28.2013

Innovator Liability Opens Doors to Recovery for Generic Drug Consumers

By Corey Lorenz, Associate
You Should Know

After the U.S. Supreme Court decided PLIVA, Inc. v. Mensing in 2011, generic drug users were left searching for possible avenues of legal recovery after incurring injury.  The Mensing decision, which held that state law failure-to-warn claims cannot be brought against generic drug manufacturers, was premised on the reasoning that by federal regulation, manufacturers of generic drugs must use the same bottle labels as their brand name counterpart.[1]

This controversial decision has since made the ability to bring a successful lawsuit against generic drug manufacturers near impossible.  The theory of Innovator Liability, which holds the brand-name manufacturer responsible for injury resulting from the generic drug, has been tested as a work around to this decision.  This theory has been defeated in court on many occasions, with the argument made that one company does not owe a duty to those taking a drug manufactured by an entirely different company.  But on January 11, 2013, the Alabama Supreme Court significantly advanced this theory, becoming the first state supreme court to hold that a brand-name company may be held liable for fraud or misrepresentation to a plaintiff claiming injury caused by a generic drug manufactured by a different company.[2]

In Wyeth, Inc. et. al. v. Weeks, et. al., the plaintiff was injured after using the generic form of the brand-named drug, Reglan, and pursued a lawsuit against the manufacturers of Reglan.[3]   The Alabama Court looked directly at Mensing to seemingly address the fundamental problem with that decision:  the lack of fairness stemming from the fact that generic drug manufacturers cannot change the drug label and must, as a matter of law, use the same label as the brand manufacturer.  After first acknowledging that it is not possible for a generic manufacturer to change their warning labels without violating federal requirements, the Court found that:

In the context of inadequate warnings by the brand-name manufacturer placed on a prescription drug manufactured by a generic-drug manufacturer, it is not fundamentally unfair to hold the brand-name manufacturer liable for warnings on a product it did not produce. . .when those alleged misrepresentations were drafted by the brand-name manufacturer and merely repeated by the generic manufacturer.[4]

The Court addressed the issue of foreseeability by reasoning that the requirement that generic labels be the same as brand-name labels makes it foreseeable that any defect in the labeling will be repeated in the generic form and cause harm to the user of the generic product.  Even more, it is foreseeable that a physician prescribing the drug will rely on the warning drafted by the brand-name manufacturer even if the patient ultimately ends up consuming the generic version.[5]

Through exploring various theories of liability and proposing new legislation, many attempts have been made to address the holding in Mensing to allow recovery for generic drug users who are otherwise left without a remedy.  The Alabama Supreme Court’s ruling is a significant progression in this effort. The reasoning and holding in Weeks may become a guide for other high courts to follow in the future, and the adoption of the Innovator Liability theory in more jurisdictions will only increase the opportunity for consumers  to seek and obtain a just recovery for injuries sustained as a result of  inadequate warning labels on the bottles of generic drugs.

 

Sources:

[1] PLIVA v. Mensing, 131 S. Ct. 2567 (2011).

[2] Wyeth, Inc. et. al. v. Weeks, et. al., 2013 Ala. LEXIS 2 (Ala. July 11, 2013).

[3] Wyeth, Inc., 2013 LEXIS 2, at *2-3.

[4] Id. at *59. 

[5] Id. at *47-48.

Share

No Comments

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Receive News Updates

Get the latest from Wexler Wallace LLP & stay informed.

Categories

  • Media Appearances
  • Uncategorized
  • Columns
    • Guest Post
    • Ken Wexler
  • Cases
  • Hall Of Shame
    • Villain Of The Week
  • In The News
    • Public Victories
  • The Firm
    • Around The World
    • Chicago
  • You Should Know
    • For Investors
    • For Businesses
    • For Consumers
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
Image

311 S. Wacker Drive,
Suite 5450
Chicago, IL 60606
P_312.346.2222
F_312.346.0022

  • Our Firm
  • Practice Areas
  • Cases
  • Investigations
  • Newsroom
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
  • Sitemap
  • Privacy Statement
  • Legal Disclaimer

2023 © Wexler Boley & Elgersma LLP

Wexler Boley & Elgersma uses cookies to improve the performance and functionality of this site. By using our website, you are providing us with your consent to use cookies on this site. Close Privacy Policy
Privacy & Cookies Policy

Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may affect your browsing experience.
Necessary
Always Enabled
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Functional
Functional cookies help to perform certain functionalities like sharing the content of the website on social media platforms, collect feedbacks, and other third-party features.
Performance
Performance cookies are used to understand and analyze the key performance indexes of the website which helps in delivering a better user experience for the visitors.
Analytics
Analytical cookies are used to understand how visitors interact with the website. These cookies help provide information on metrics the number of visitors, bounce rate, traffic source, etc.
Advertisement
Advertisement cookies are used to provide visitors with relevant ads and marketing campaigns. These cookies track visitors across websites and collect information to provide customized ads.
Others
Other uncategorized cookies are those that are being analyzed and have not been classified into a category as yet.
SAVE & ACCEPT