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...]

      Hartford Bakery, Inc. Issues Allergy Alert on Undeclared Hazelnuts in “Lewis Bake Shop Artisan Style ½ Loaf”

      Summary Company Announcement Date: July 10, 2025 FDA Publish Date: July … [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:

  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print

Related

Filed Under: USRCN Editorial

About Candelaria

Leave a ReplyCancel 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

Hartford Bakery, Inc. Issues Allergy Alert on Undeclared Hazelnuts in “Lewis Bake Shop Artisan Style ½ Loaf”

July 10, 2025 By The FDA

Walmart Recalls Ozark Trail 64 oz Water Bottles Due to Serious Impact and Laceration Hazards

July 9, 2025 By The CPSC

WLIVE Fabric Dressers Recalled Due to Risk of Serious Injury or Death from Tip-Over and Entrapment Hazards; Violations of Federal Standard for Clothing Storage Units; Sold on Amazon by WLIVE

July 9, 2025 By The CPSC

Hero Highlight

J&J Settles Talc Mesothelioma Settlement

January 15, 2020 By Advice Media

AUGNORYE Padded Crib Bumpers Recalled Due to Risk of Serious Injury or Death from Suffocation; Violates Federal Crib Bumper Ban; Sold on Amazon by YIXIA

July 9, 2025 By The CPSC

Braided Crib Bumpers Recalled Due to Risk of Serious Injury or Death from Suffocation; Violates Federal Crib Bumper Ban; Sold on Amazon by Haoyunm

July 9, 2025 By The CPSC

Creekliybear Play Yard Mattresses Recalled Due to Risk of Serious Injury or Death from Entrapment Hazard; Violates Mandatory Standard for Crib Mattresses; Sold on Amazon by Kbabyea

July 9, 2025 By The CPSC

Dearlomum Retractable Safety Gates Recalled Due to Risk of Serious Injury or Death to Children from Entrapment Hazard; Violates Federal Standard for Gates and Enclosures; Sold on Amazon by Signbaby

July 9, 2025 By The CPSC

CHS Inc. Recalls Payback Champion Lamb Feed Due to Elevated Copper Health Risk

July 9, 2025 By The FDA

J&J Settles Talc Mesothelioma Settlement

January 15, 2020 By Advice Media

Dearlomum Retractable Safety Gates Recalled Due to Risk of Serious Injury or Death to Children from Entrapment Hazard; Violates Federal Standard for Gates and Enclosures; Sold on Amazon by Signbaby

July 9, 2025 By The CPSC

CHS Inc. Recalls Payback Champion Lamb Feed Due to Elevated Copper Health Risk

July 9, 2025 By The FDA

Mondelēz Global LLC Conducts U.S. Voluntary Recall of Four Carton Sizes of RITZ Peanut Butter Cracker Sandwiches Due to Labeling Error

July 8, 2025 By The FDA

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

  • Hartford Bakery, Inc. Issues Allergy Alert on Undeclared Hazelnuts in “Lewis Bake Shop Artisan Style ½ Loaf”
  • Walmart Recalls Ozark Trail 64 oz Water Bottles Due to Serious Impact and Laceration Hazards
  • WLIVE Fabric Dressers Recalled Due to Risk of Serious Injury or Death from Tip-Over and Entrapment Hazards; Violations of Federal Standard for Clothing Storage Units; Sold on Amazon by WLIVE
  • Giant Bicycle Recalls Momentum Vida E+ E-Bikes Due to Crash Hazard
  • SPPTTY Kids Bicycles Recalled Due to Risk of Death or Injury from Lead Poisoning; Violates Federal Lead Content Ban; Sold at Walmart by Shenzhen Yihuachuang Technology
  • AUGNORYE Padded Crib Bumpers Recalled Due to Risk of Serious Injury or Death from Suffocation; Violates Federal Crib Bumper Ban; Sold on Amazon by YIXIA
  • Braided Crib Bumpers Recalled Due to Risk of Serious Injury or Death from Suffocation; Violates Federal Crib Bumper Ban; Sold on Amazon by Haoyunm
  • Creekliybear Play Yard Mattresses Recalled Due to Risk of Serious Injury or Death from Entrapment Hazard; Violates Mandatory Standard for Crib Mattresses; Sold on Amazon by Kbabyea
  • Dearlomum Retractable Safety Gates Recalled Due to Risk of Serious Injury or Death to Children from Entrapment Hazard; Violates Federal Standard for Gates and Enclosures; Sold on Amazon by Signbaby
-- 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 © 2025 Altrumedia · Terms of Service · Log in