ILNews

SCOTUS: Plaintiffs can sue drug companies

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The U.S. Supreme Court says pharmaceutical companies can be sued in state court over alleged drug effects, even if the Food and Drug Administration has approved the medication and its warning label.

In what some are describing as a landmark decision Wednesday in Wyeth v. Levine, No. 06-1249, justices voted 6-3 against the drug giant and issued a major defeat to the pharmaceutical industry. The majority determined that the federal regulation and warning label approval doesn't preempt state laws and shield companies from damages as part of liability claims.

The decision is a blow to companies such as Indianapolis-based Eli Lilly, which have long sought to establish federal oversight as a single standard for preempting state law and had support from the Bush administration that pushed to shield pharmaceutical industries from negligence suits.

Critics say this Wyeth ruling could lead to a flood of litigation in state courts, while others contend it simply reinforces what should already be happening.

Indianapolis attorney Irwin Levine, who has no connection to this case but represents multiple plaintiffs against Wyeth in other cases nationally, said the SCOTUS decision makes a lot of sense.

"The FDA, which we all know is overburdened, underfunded, and can't even keep our food supply safe, is not the end all, be all for consumer safety," he said. "Drug companies wanted a free pass, but the court determined that the FDA approval is not a get-out-of-jail-free card."

Justices found in favor of Diana Levine, a once-professional musician who received a $6.8 million jury award in Vermont after she developed gangrene and lost her right forearm because of how Wyeth's anti-nausea drug, Phenergan, was administered. The trial court concluded that Levine's injury would not have occurred if the drug's label had included an adequate warning about the significant risks of delivering it by means of the IV-push method.

The court rejected the drug maker's arguments that the FDA had approved warning labels for the drug and that trumped state law under which the suit was filed.

"State tort suits uncover unknown drug hazards and provide incentives for drug manufacturers to disclose safety risks promptly," authoring Justice John Paul Stevens wrote. "They also serve a distinct compensatory function that may motivate injured persons to come forward with information."

Justice Stevens wrote a footnote that conceded the FDA has "limited resources to monitor the 11,000 drugs on the market," and he mentioned a series of studies lamenting the federal agency's inability to use its drug-approval authority to ensure that pharmaceutical companies are doing all that they must do to warn doctors and patients about the risks of new drugs and of the methods of administering them to patients.

Writing for the minority, Justice Samuel Alito called the ruling a "frontal assault" on the FDA's regulatory regime for drug labeling and that the warnings in this case sufficiently warned of the possible dangers.

"This case illustrates that tragic facts make bad law," he wrote.

"The unfortunate fact that respondent's healthcare providers ignored Phenergan's labeling may make this an ideal medical malpractice case," he later wrote.

Indianapolis attorney Scott Montross said he finds it refreshing that the court refused to accept the attempts to further extend the preemption limitation, which had come from a ruling last year denying plaintiffs the right to sue medical-device makers because of express language.

Justice Stevens' recognition that Wyeth received notice about 20 similar incidents but didn't attempt to strengthen the warning label shows the dangers of what could have happened in this case had the decision been different.

"(That) demonstrates how dangerous it is to cloak a manufacturer with any immunity, be it for prescription drugs or medical devices," Montross said. "The pre-emption doctrine removes the incentive to the manufacturer to monitor the use of its products and to take reasonable steps to protect innocent patients."

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT