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
8.19.2013

Supreme Court Makes Second Landmark Ruling on the Liability of Generic Drug Manufacturers

By Corey Lorenz, Associate
In The News

Over the last year, I have written about the evolving law on an issue at the center of much controversy: the ability to bring product liability lawsuits against generic drug manufacturers.  While the Supreme Court determined that state law failure to warn claims cannot be pursued against generic drug manufacturers in PLIVA v. Mensing in 2011, the decisions in several lower court rulings seemed to provide plaintiffs the ability—although limited—to bring product liability lawsuits alleging other state law claims.  However, lower courts were divided on this issue and the primary question remained:  Can design defect claims be pursued against generic manufacturers in the wake of Mensing?

Amidst a series of historic decisions handed down this summer, the Supreme Court answered this question when they decided Mutual Pharmaceutical Co., Inc. v. Bartlett on June 24, 2013.  In that opinion (reversing the First Circuit), the Court found that design defect claims based on the adequacy of the drug’s warnings are pre-empted by federal law under Mensing, and accordingly, cannot be brought against generic drug manufacturers.  This decision extends the holding in Mensing and essentially extinguishes the ability for a plaintiff to pursue any claim for injuries against a manufacturer of a generic drug.

The Court’s rationale in Bartlett directly mirrors that used in deciding Mensing.  In these cases, the Court reasoned that because the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) requires a generic drug to have the same ingredients, route of administration, dosage form, strength and labeling as its brand name equivalent, a generic manufacturer is prohibited by law from either strengthening the warnings (Mensing) or altering the composition of the drug (Bartlett).  As a result, state law product liability claims that place a duty on manufacturers to render a drug safer by either altering its composition or label are pre-empted.

The ramifications and seeming injustice that results from this decision did not go unnoticed by the Court when issuing the opinion:

This case arises out of tragic circumstances.  A combination of factors combined to produce the rare and devastating injuries that respondent suffered;  the FDA’s decision to approve the sale of sulindac and the warnings that accompanied the drug at the time it was prescribed, the decision by respondent’s physician to prescribe sulindac despite its known risks, and Congress’ decision to regulate the manufacture and sale of generic drugs in a way that reduces their cost to patients but leaves generic drug manufacturers incapable of modifying either the drugs’ compositions or their warnings.  Respondent’s situation is tragic and evokes deep sympathy, but a straightforward application of pre-emption law requires that the judgment below be reversed.

In light of Mensing and Bartlett, it is clear that a generic manufacturer’s inability to alter a drug or update the labeling—even when relevant safety information becomes available—unfairly shields them from all responsibility and liability, and ultimately leaves a substantial amount of consumers without any legal recourse when injury occurs. 

In response to this issue, the FDA has recently announced plans to issue a rule that would allow generic drug makers to change their labeling if they become aware of safety concerns or new information.  While it is unclear if and when this will become effective, this proposed rule is both an acknowledgement of the serious problem at hand and a significant step to address it.  If this rule should be implemented, it could eliminate pre-emption of failure to warn claims against generic drug manufacturers.

This ever-changing area of law will only continue to evolve.  The Supreme Court’s decision in Bartlett made it almost impossible to pursue a claim against a generic drug manufacturer, but also highlighted the significant problems resulting from this holding.  The FDA’s response was both immediate and on point, and in the coming months may have a dramatic impact on the Supreme Court rulings.    

 


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