US Recall News

United States Recall News Alerts for Recalled Drugs, Food, Products, & Vehicles

MENUMENU
  • Home
  • About
    • Advertise
  • Full Recall News Archive
    • Top Story

      J&J Settles Talc Mesothelioma Settlement

      By Sandra Dalton, Staff Writer On January 6, 2020, Superior Court Judge Stephen Kaus announced that Johnson & Johnsons (J&J) had agreed to … [Read More...]

      Mutual Trading Co., Inc Issues Allergy Alert for Undeclared Soy in Sauces

      Summary Company Announcement Date: March 20, 2023 FDA Publish Date: … [Read More...]

    • More Safety Articles
    • Federal Preemption of State Product Liability Law
  • Drug Recalls
    • Abilify
    • Benicar
    • Fluoroquinolones
    • Invokana
    • Lipitor
    • Nuplazid
    • Opioids
    • OxyContin
    • Pradaxa
    • Proton Pump Inhibitors (PPIs)
    • Risperdal
    • SSRI
    • Symptoms & Side Effects
    • Taxotere
    • Testosterone
    • Uloric
    • Valsartan
    • Xarelto
    • Zofran
  • Medical Devices
    • 3M Earplug
    • 3T Heater-Cooler System
    • Bair Hugger
    • Bipolar Hip System
    • Essure
    • Hip Replacements
    • Implanon
    • IVC Filters
    • Hernia Mesh
    • Power Morcellators
    • Shoulder Implants
    • Transvaginal Mesh
  • Food Recalls
    • FDA Press Releases
    • USDA Press Releases
  • Auto Recalls
    • Air Bags
    • Ignitions
    • NHTSA Press Releases
    • Off-Road Utility Vehicles
    • Snowmobiles
    • Tires
  • Other Products
    • Asbestos
    • Baby Products
    • Pet Products
    • Roundup
    • Talcum Powder
    • Toy Recalls
You are here: Home / USRCN Editorial / Supreme Court Should Allow Generic Drug Defective Product Claims

Supreme Court Should Allow Generic Drug Defective Product Claims

April 30, 2013 By Candelaria Leave a Comment

This month, the US Supreme Court will hear arguments in the case of a woman who suffered the gruesome skin reaction toxic epidermal necrosis (TEN) after taking a generic form of sulindac, a mild non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID). The case, Bartlett v. Mutual Pharmaceutical Company, Inc, follows up on 2010’s Pliva v. Mensing decision, which protected generic drug manufacturers from failure-to-warn lawsuits. The Supreme Court has the opportunity to either clarify the circumstances under which a generic drug manufacturer may be sued for pharmaceutical injuries or extend a blanket protection against lawsuits.

By no means should the Supreme Court give additional protections to generic drug manufacturers. They should allow defective product lawsuits against manufacturers of generic drugs.

Court Should Not Make a General Generic Preemption Rule

In the circuit court decision under review, the judges noted that disallowing defective design claims would essentially grant full protection to generic drug manufacturers under the cover of federal preemption. After all, if lawsuits cannot be brought on the basis of a failure to warn claim or on the basis of a defective design, on what basis could they be brought?

Making a general preemption rule would contradict the findings of Wyeth v. Levine (2009), in which the Supreme Court decided that the Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act (FDCA) and its amendments were never intended to completely prevent state-based tort claims. The Supreme Court said these lawsuits play an important role in helping to ensure the safety of drugs on the market. Since generic drugs make up to 80% of all prescriptions filled in the US, preempting lawsuits against their manufacturers would dramatically undermine the function of these claims.

Manufacturers Have a Responsibility to Ensure Safety of Product

For at least a century of product liability lawsuits, the Court has asserted that manufacturers have the ultimate responsibility to ensure the safety of the products they make and sell. If the Hatch-Waxman amendments to the FDCA limit the discretion a generic drug manufacturer has in the composition of the drug or its label, there is still nothing in them that says a manufacturer has to manufacture a particular drug. A manufacturer considering marketing a generic drug has to consider, among other things, whether the safety risks associated with a drug make it one they should manufacture and market.

Mutual Pharmaceutical Company claims that because it did not design the drug, it cannot be held responsible for defects in its design. However, how is this different from a car manufacturer who does not design—or even manufacture—all of the components that go into its vehicle, but still has a responsibility to evaluate the safety of those components to ensure the safety of the final product? (See, for example, Macpherson v. Buick (1916).)

Allowing Claims Ensures Effectiveness of Lawsuits

In a market-based medical system like ours, lawsuits play an important role in evaluating the overall usefulness of drugs. They allow us to weigh the value of a drug to patients that take it, measured by the total value of prescriptions sold by the manufacturers, against the harm a drug does to individuals, measured by the verdicts and settlements in pharmaceutical injury cases. If a drug provides more good than harm, the drug will remain profitable for both name-brand and generic manufacturers. If a drug is more harmful than good, it will cease to be profitable and will leave the market without the need for the FDA to act.

Protecting generic drug manufacturers from lawsuits will keep dangerous drugs on the market long after we have become aware of the dangers they pose. Often, as in the case of sulinac, safer alternatives exist, and by culling the dangerous ones, we will be left with a better selection of treatments.

Allowing Claims Protects Name-Brand Manufacturers

Protecting generic drug manufacturers from design defect claims will encourage courts to decide name-brand manufacturers should pay for injuries caused by generic drugs. After all, who wrote the label that carried inadequate warnings? The name-brand manufacturer. And who designed the drug that was deemed to be defective? The name-brand manufacturer.

We need name-brand manufacturers to continue spending money on research and development of new drugs, and protecting generic drug manufacturers could end that. After all, who would spend the money to develop a new drug if they will not only lose patent protection on it and be forced to compete with generic alternatives—they will have to pay court losses for those generic alternatives?

A name-brand manufacturer would not even be able to protect itself by ceasing production on a drug—it is still at risk as long as generic manufacturers decide to keep making a drug that they designed and labeled.

For all these reasons, the Supreme Court should affirm the well-considered and excellently written decision of the United States District Court of New Hampshire.

Share this:

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Email
  • Print

Related

Filed Under: USRCN Editorial

About Candelaria

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Facebook
Thomas Roney LLC
Economic Consulting

J&J Settles Talc Mesothelioma Settlement

January 15, 2020 By Advice Media

Mutual Trading Co., Inc Issues Allergy Alert for Undeclared Soy in Sauces

March 20, 2023 By The FDA

Voluntary Recall of One Lot of Kaytee® Wild Bird Food Birders Blend, 8 Lb Bag, Due to Elevated Levels of Aflatoxin

March 18, 2023 By The FDA

Perrigo Announces Voluntary Recall of Limited Quantity of Gerber® Good Start® SootheProTM Powdered Infant Formula

March 16, 2023 By The FDA

Hero Highlight

J&J Settles Talc Mesothelioma Settlement

January 15, 2020 By Advice Media

Scenic Fruit Company Recalls Frozen Organic Strawberries and Frozen Organic Tropical Fruit Blend Because of Possible Health Risk

March 15, 2023 By The FDA

BC Gourmet USA, Inc. Issues Allergy Alert on Undeclared Pine Nuts in Scarpetta Brand Pink Pesto

March 15, 2023 By The FDA

California Splendor, Inc. Recalls Kirkland Brand Bags of Frozen Organic Whole Strawberries Distributed by Costco in Los Angeles, Hawaii, and in Two San Diego Business Centers Because of Possible Health Risk

March 15, 2023 By The FDA

Polaris Recalls Sportsman All-Terrain Vehicles Due to Fire and Crash Hazards (Recall Alert)

March 15, 2023 By The CPSC

Ecoxall Recalls Sodium Hydroxide Caustic Soda Beads and Potassium Hydroxide Flakes Due to Failure to Meet Child Resistant Packaging Requirements; Sold Exclusively on Amazon.com

March 15, 2023 By The CPSC

J&J Settles Talc Mesothelioma Settlement

January 15, 2020 By Advice Media

Polaris Recalls Sportsman All-Terrain Vehicles Due to Fire and Crash Hazards (Recall Alert)

March 15, 2023 By The CPSC

Ecoxall Recalls Sodium Hydroxide Caustic Soda Beads and Potassium Hydroxide Flakes Due to Failure to Meet Child Resistant Packaging Requirements; Sold Exclusively on Amazon.com

March 15, 2023 By The CPSC

Fredericksburg Farms Recalls 10 Ounce Scented Candles with Glass Lids Due to Laceration Hazard

March 15, 2023 By The CPSC

Recall News in Your Inbox

Enter your email address to receive automated recall news updates.

Recent Comments

  • Roger McGowan on ABH NATURE’S PRODUCTS, INC, ABH PHARMA, INC., and STOCKNUTRA.COM, INC. Issues Nationwide Recall of All Lots of Dietary Supplement Products
  • Kathryn Moore on FDA Wants Cancer Warning on Breast Implants
  • BRAD on Huge ATV Recall by Polaris – Sportsman and Scrambler
  • Crystal Anderson on Allergan Voluntarily Recalls BIOCELL® Textured Breast Implants and Tissue Expanders
  • Outsourcing Training on The Modern Marketing of Pain
  • SANDRA Collett on Processed Food Preservative Linked to Autism?
  • Eric Karsh on Health Risks of Roundup Go Well Beyond Cancer

Recent Posts

  • Mutual Trading Co., Inc Issues Allergy Alert for Undeclared Soy in Sauces
  • Voluntary Recall of One Lot of Kaytee® Wild Bird Food Birders Blend, 8 Lb Bag, Due to Elevated Levels of Aflatoxin
  • Perrigo Announces Voluntary Recall of Limited Quantity of Gerber® Good Start® SootheProTM Powdered Infant Formula
  • Mockingbird Expands Recall to Include Single Strollers Due to Fall Hazard
  • Updated – Scenic Fruit Company Recalls Frozen Organic Strawberries and Frozen Organic Tropical Blend Because of Possible Health Risk
  • Scenic Fruit Company Recalls Frozen Organic Strawberries and Frozen Organic Tropical Fruit Blend Because of Possible Health Risk
  • BC Gourmet USA, Inc. Issues Allergy Alert on Undeclared Pine Nuts in Scarpetta Brand Pink Pesto
  • California Splendor, Inc. Recalls Kirkland Brand Bags of Frozen Organic Whole Strawberries Distributed by Costco in Los Angeles, Hawaii, and in Two San Diego Business Centers Because of Possible Health Risk
  • Polaris Recalls Sportsman All-Terrain Vehicles Due to Fire and Crash Hazards (Recall Alert)
-- See More Recall News

Disclaimer: The information contained in these topics is not intended nor implied to be a substitute for professional medical or legal advice, it is provided for educational purposes only. Always seek the advice of your physician or other qualified healthcare provider about any questions you may have regarding a medical condition. Nothing contained in these topics is intended to be used for medical diagnosis or treatment.


ATTORNEY ADVERTISING. The information provided on this website is not legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is formed by the use of this site. It is not stated or implied that a lawyer is certified as a specialist in any particular field of law. No results are guaranteed, and prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. This site is informational, only, not dispositive; it is up to you to decide whether a particular lawyer is right for you. Use of this site is subject to your agreement to these.


Copyright © 2023 Altrumedia · Terms of Service · Log in