Plaintiffs May Assert Negligent Design Claims for Prescription Drugs, Pa. Supreme Court Holds

by Ballard Spahr LLP
Contact

In a stunning decision with broad implications for pharmaceutical companies in Pennsylvania and elsewhere, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has held that plaintiffs may assert negligence claims against pharmaceutical companies relating to the design, testing, marketing and distribution of drugs regulated by the Food and Drug Administration.

The decision upends years of accepted law in Pennsylvania. While the Supreme Court had not previously addressed the precise issue of a pharmaceutical company’s alleged lack of care in the design and testing of a marketed drug, pharmaceutical companies generally have succeeded in securing the dismissal of such claims by relying on the learned intermediary doctrine and the FDA’s rigid approval process for prescription drugs. This new decision will enable juries to second-guess FDA approval by concluding that an approved medicine is, or at least was, too dangerous to be marketed in the first place. If it stands, this case will alter the terrain of pharmaceutical litigation in Pennsylvania.

Lance v. Wyeth stemmed from two weight-loss drugs widely prescribed in the 1990s. Wyeth stopped selling the drugs following reports that they were linked to valvular heart disease. The plaintiff’s daughter died from pulmonary hypertension years after taking one of the drugs. The plaintiff’s central legal claim was one of negligence, alleging that the drug was “unreasonably dangerous,” and that it therefore was unreasonable to market the drug or fail to remove it from the market sooner. Other claims included negligent design, research, development, sale, and testing.

Wyeth argued, among other things, that Pennsylvania had refused to extend strict liability to prescription drug manufacturers, consistent with the approach of the Restatement (Second) of Torts, Section 402A, Comment k. Specifically, Wyeth argued, consistent with Pennsylvania law, that prescription drugs are by necessity unavoidably unsafe, but they are not unreasonably dangerous or defective when accompanied by proper warnings and directions. Wyeth interpreted Pennsylvania case law and Comment k as precluding negligent design claims against drug manufacturers, particularly given that no plaintiff ever could prove a reasonable alternative design.

Wyeth also argued that allowing the plaintiffs to bring only failure-to-warn and manufacturing defect claims struck the appropriate balance between compensating injured consumers and not discouraging the continued development of beneficial medicines. Indeed, Wyeth stressed that the FDA had approved its drugs, and the risk-benefit analysis underlying that approval was the FDA’s exclusive province.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court rejected what it characterized as Wyeth’s attempts to “insulate” pharmaceutical companies from negligence claims. As the dissenting opinion makes clear, much of the court’s reasoning relies on its questionable decision to frame the issue as one of limiting a recognized cause of action, as opposed to one of recognizing a new cause of action.

In rejecting Wyeth’s arguments, the court concluded that Comment k was inapplicable because it presumes that a medicine has some net benefit, and therefore does not apply to a claim that a drug is too dangerous to be used by anyone. Additionally, the court acknowledged the FDA’s limited resources, and further concluded that absolute deference to a federal body based on its approval of a particular drug could have negative effects.

The court added that strict liability focuses on the product itself, and not on the conduct of the manufacturer. Such companies are held to a high degree of care under Pennsylvania tort law and federal law, and they should not be excused from such duties categorically, the court said.

The opinion is less than clear regarding whether a plaintiff advancing a negligent design claim must demonstrate a reasonable alternative design, but the court emphasized that it has not previously required such proof as an “absolute prerequisite” to a design defect claim. In fact, the opinion suggests that a plaintiff may satisfy that requirement by referring to other existing treatments as a substitute for a drug “so dangerous it should not be used.”

Interestingly, despite rendering a landmark decision recognizing a new cause of action, the court conceded: “We do not discount the impact of litigation on the pharmaceutical industry, but we simply do not know enough about it to undertake any kind of reasoned comparison of the social policy effects of curtailing fault-based liability in Pennsylvania.”

The court also raised significant doubt regarding the ability to assert a negligent design claim—premised on the argument that a drug is too dangerous to be used by anyone—to a drug still on the market. Specifically, the court acknowledged that such an argument would be difficult to advance in a circumstance where a drug “maintained its FDA approval, it remained on the market, and U.S. doctors continued to prescribe it.”

Despite those concessions, Lance stands as a significant expansion of pharmaceutical manufacturer liability in Pennsylvania, particularly concerning withdrawn or recalled drugs, and it raises substantial preemption concerns in the process.

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.

© Ballard Spahr LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Ballard Spahr LLP
Contact
more
less

Ballard Spahr LLP on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):
hide

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.

Security

JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.