The National Trial Lawyers
  • Home
    • Meet Our Team
    • Contact Us
    • Mission & Goals
    • FAQ
  • Webinars
  • News
  • Membership Directory
    • Top 100 Map – Civil Plaintiff
    • Top 100 Map – Criminal Defense
    • Top 40 Under 40 Map – Civil Plaintiff
    • Top 40 Under 40 Map – Criminal Defense
  • Top 100
    • Civil Plaintiff Officers / Executive Committee
    • Criminal Defense Officers / Executive Committee
    • Benefits
    • About
    • Top 100 President’s Message
    • Diplomat
    • Membership Renewal
    • Member Profile Updates
    • Top 100 Badge
    • Media
  • Top 40
    • Civil Plaintiff Officers / Executive Committee
    • Criminal Defense Officers / Executive Committee
    • Top 40 Under 40 Trial Academy Bootcamp
    • Benefits
    • About
    • Top 40 President’s Message
    • Membership Renewal
    • Member Profile Updates
    • Top 40 Badge
    • Media
  • Specialty Assoc
    • About
    • Shop
    • Officers
    • Membership Renewal
    • Member Profile Updates
    • Media
  • Nominate
    • Top 100
    • Top 40
    • Specialty Association
    • Trial Lawyer Hall of Fame
    • Trial Lawyer of the Year
    • Trial Team of the Year
    • America’s Most Influential Trial Lawyer
    • America’s Most Influential Law Firm
    • Lifetime Achievement Award
  • Shop
  • Magazine
    • A-List
  • Education and Networking Agenda
    • Trial Lawyers Summit
      • Summit Sponsors
    • Top 40 Under 40 Trial Academy Boot Camp
    • Mass Torts Made Perfect
    • The Lanier Master Class 5.0 Trial Academy 2021
    • Webinars
  • Hall of Fame
    • Trial Lawyer Hall of Fame

Drug Companies Use a Trio of Rulings to Defeat Mass Tort Cases

Posted on January 11, 2016 by Larry Bodine

Big PharmaMass tort plaintiffs face a new preemption risk as drug companies are coordinating the use of a deadly trio of rulings to defeat weaker cases in multidistrict litigation dockets.

Three federal court rulings are being cited increasingly by Big Pharma to win summary judgment rulings in failure-to-warn cases involving dangerous drugs:

  • Stephanie Yates v. Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals, in MDL 1742 in Ohio, a case where a teenager had a stroke after using the Ortho Evra patch. US District Judge David A. Katz granted summary judgment to the drug companies, ruling that a label warning to a doctor’s assistant was sufficient, even if the victim was too young to understand it.
  • Donna Booker v. Johnson & Johnson, in MDL 1742, a wrongful death case involving the Ortho Evra birth control patch. Judge Katz granted summary judgment to the drug company because the case, arising under the Georgia design defect laws, was pre-empted by federal law.
  • In re: Incretin-Based Therapies, in MDL 2452 in San Diego, CA, involving four diabetes (incretin) drugs, which the plaintiffs charge causes pancreatic cancer. US District Judge Anthony Battaglia granted summary judgment to the drug companies, saying the case was pre-empted by federal law.

“Defense firms have continued an attempt to expand the scope of these decisions to make broader preemption arguments related to brand name drugs as well as generics. These attempts have been successful in several individual cases,” said John Ray, a leading consultant to the Mass Tort industry for over a decade.

“The drug companies are coordinating to pick off weaker cases,” he said. “These cases are increasingly getting cited in arguments to dismiss all of a plaintiff’s claims. These involve viable state court claims that are being removed to federal court, where the claim is ruled invalid.”

Ray will focus on these preemption rulings in the four-day Mass Torts Immersion Course held January 15-18 in Ft. Lauderdale, Fl. “This is something that mass tort plaintiff lawyers need to be educated about. Bad case law is being created by rulings in weak cases. The bad case law can be used to create additional bad case law.”

Failure to Warn Case Dismissed

Stephanie Yates v. Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals was a failure to warn case filed under New York state law that the drug companies removed to federal court, where the claim was ruled invalid. Yates was 17 when she had a stroke after using the Ortho Evra birth control patch. The patch was approved by the FDA in 2001 and the Detailed Patient Labeling included the warnings about the risk of stroke. A licensed physician’s assistant prescribed the patch for her and warned the girl about the danger of strokes.

The court applied the learned intermediary doctrine, that a warning to the treating physician fulfills a drug maker’s duty to warn of potential dangers. The judge brushed aside her claims that the warnings were insufficient because she was a minor at the time, and that her mother did not know she was using the patch.

“The Defendant’s duty to warn is to the physician and not the patient,” the court ruled, granting the drug companies’ motion for summary judgment.

“Impossibility” defense torpedoes defective design case

Donna Booker v. Johnson & Johnson was a defective design claim brought under Georgia law. The case was removed to federal court where it was ruled invalid, because it was preempted by federal law.

Booker’s daughter died of a pulmonary embolism as a result of using the Ortho birth control patch. The mother filed a claim under Georgia law that the patch was defectively designed and manufactured. The mother had established a prima facie case sufficient to present to a jury for a design defect claim.

After removing the case to federal court, the drug company filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, but was defeated. The drug company followed up with a motion for summary judgment, arguing that it was impossible for the company to comply with both federal and state drug laws.

The analysis turned on whether the drug company could have changed the composition of the drug to make it safer. Federal law, however, prohibits making a change without FDA approval.

The US Supreme Court has ruled that in such cases, state-law design-defect claims that turn on the adequacy of a drug’s warnings are pre-empted by federal law. The court granted summary judgment to the drug company.

Court reads the mind of the FDA

In re: Incretin-Based Therapies involves four incretin (metabolic hormones that stimulate a decrease in blood glucose levels) diabetes drugs — Byetta, Januvia, Janumet and Victoza. The plaintiffs charge that the drug companies failed to warn on the labels that they could cause pancreatic cancer.

Again, the drug companies argued that it was impossible to add the warning without FDA approval, and therefore the claims were preempted by federal law.

The court granted summary judgment to the defendants, inferring that the FDA would have rejected a pancreatic cancer reference in the product labeling, even though the FDA was aware of a pancreatic cancer “safety signal” for several years.

The FDA does not have a position on whether the incretin drugs cause cancer. But the court said the FDA would have rejected the label warning because:

  • The FDA rejected a citizen petition to add the cancer warning.
  • The FDA published an assessment of pancreatic safety in the New England Journal of Medicine that a causal association between the drugs and pancreatic cancer is indeterminate.

Meanwhile the court brushed aside plaintiff’s arguments that:

  • Health Canada published a 98-page signal assessment that Januvia may be associated with a risk of pancreatic cancer.
  • The FDA’s assessment relied on a Merck study that excluded three known cases of pancreatic cancer in patient that took Januvia.
  • The annual review submitted to the FDA by Novo in 2013 omitted a secondary analysis that Victoza “has some effect on pancreatic duct gland mass proliferation.”
  • Amylin and Lilly did not provide the FDA with evidence of precancerous lesions observed in primate studies.

The court concluded: “Defendants have demonstrated by clear evidence that the FDA would have rejected a reference to pancreatic cancer in the product labeling.”

 

Posted in Blog, Mass Torts, Personal Injury, Product Liability

Comments are closed.

News Categories

Subscribe to Blog and VFJ via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog, the Voice for Justice and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Read about other Top Jury Verdicts

Toyota Will Pay $180M to Settle Violations of the Clean-Air Act

Toyota Will Pay $180M to Settle Violations of the Clean-Air Act

The U.S. Department of Justice and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced today that the United States has[Read More...]
Boeing's Insitu Will Pay $25M to Settle a Whistleblower Complaint About Used Drone Parts

Boeing's Insitu Will Pay $25M to Settle a Whistleblower Complaint About Used Drone Parts

Bingen, Wash.-based Insitu, a Boeing subsidiary, has agreed to pay $25 million to settle allegations that it used recycl[Read More...]
Deutsche Bank Agrees to Settle Criminal and Civil Charges for $130M

Deutsche Bank Agrees to Settle Criminal and Civil Charges for $130M

DEUTSCHE Bank AG agreed to pay US$130 million to settle criminal and civil charges that it bribed foreign officials and manip[Read More...]
Boeing Pays $2.5B to Settle Charges Tied to the 737 MAX Crashes

Boeing Pays $2.5B to Settle Charges Tied to the 737 MAX Crashes

Boeing has agreed to pay just over $2.5 billion to resolve a federal charge of “criminal misconduct” for how its [Read More...]
Texas Attorney General Seeks $43M in Google Antitrust Lawsuit

Texas Attorney General Seeks $43M in Google Antitrust Lawsuit

The mass exodus of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton's top staff over accusations of bribery against their former boss has le[Read More...]

#LegalNews

@@TheNTLtop100

Contact Us | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy

Attorney information and content provided on this website is provided for the benefit of members of The National Trial Lawyers and as a public service by Legal Associations Management, Inc. The website and all data are the property of Legal Associations Management, Inc. Data, including without limitation attorney information and content, on the site may not be mined, sold, or used commercially for any purpose without the explicit written consent of Legal Associations Management, Inc. This site may not be accessed by any automated program for extracting data for any use. By accessing and using the site you agree that you will not develop, support or use software, devices, scripts, robots, or any other means or processes (including crawlers, browser plug-ins and add-ons, or any other technology) to scrape data or otherwise copy profiles and other data. Unauthorized use or attempted unauthorized use of this system may subject you to both civil and criminal penalties.