In late June the Supreme Court issued its ruling in the much-anticipated Mutual Pharms. Co. v. Bartlett, No. 12-142 (on appeal from the First Circuit Bartlett v. Mutual Pharms. Co., 678 F.3d 30 (1st Cir. 2012)). As we predicted, the Court reversed the First Circuit’s decision and held that “(s)tate-law design defect claims that turn on the adequacy of a drug’s warnings are preempted by federal law under PLIVA [Inc. v. Mensing].”
Bartlett’s background -
Bartlett’s facts are undeniably tragic. The plaintiff, Karen Bartlett, took generic sulindac (manufactured by Mutual) for shoulder pain. She developed Stevens-Johnson syndrome/ toxic epidermal necrolysis (SJS/ TEN) and suffered permanent injury and disfigurement. By the time of trial, the only remaining claim for the jury to decide was whether sulindac was defectively designed. The jury found in Bartlett’s favor and awarded her $21.06 million in compensatory damages.
Originally published in Chain Drug Review on 8/5/2013.
Please see full article below for more information.
Firefox recommends the PDF Plugin for Mac OS X for viewing PDF documents in your browser.
We can also show you Legal Updates using the Google Viewer; however, you will need to be logged into Google Docs to view them.
Please choose one of the above to proceed!
LOADING PDF: If there are any problems, click here to download the file.
Topics: DNA, Drug Manufacturers, Genetic Materials, Human Genes, Pharmaceutical
Published In: Civil Procedure Updates, General Business Updates, Conflict of Laws Updates, Products Liability Updates, Science, Computers & Technology Updates
DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.
© Morrison & Foerster LLP | Attorney Advertising