Thursday, November 12, 2009

Scorecard: Innovator Liability In Generic Drug Cases

Regular blog readers know how we feel about Conte v. Wyeth, Inc., 85 Cal. Rptr.3d 299 (Cal. App. 2008), review denied (Cal. Jan. 21, 2009) – the case that held an innovator drug manufacturer potentially liable for “misrepresentations” even though it did not manufacture the drug that allegedly harmed the plaintiff. We criticized virtually every aspect of Conte here, here, here, and here. We gave Conte our nod as the worst judicial decision of 2008 in our field. Bexis wrote an amicus brief in support of the ultimately unsuccessful effort to get the California Supreme Court to review the Conte decision. In short, we thought Conte was bad news all around.


Last week we put up a guest post with some good news about Conte – in the year since it had been decided, no other court had found its reasoning to be persuasive. Our guest posters observed:




For those keeping score, this makes 31 courts in 19 states that have refused to impose liability on a brand name drug manufacturer for injuries caused by its competitors’ generic drugs.

We took that as a very subtle rebuke. It had to be subtle – it’s our blog, after all.


But they have a point. After all, isn’t keeping score one of the things we do? We maintain current scorecards on drug/vaccine preemption, medical device preemption, cross-jurisdictional class-action tolling (if you don't know, don't ask), and no present injury plaintiffs.


Well guys, it worked – you got us off our duffs. We haven’t put together a scorecard on a new topic in over a year, so that sounded like a good idea. What follows is a chronological list of every judicial decision we know of that addresses the issue of whether a innovator (also known as “pioneer,” “name brand,” or “listed”) drug manufacturer can be liable in a suit where the plaintiff only took a generic version of that drug, which was manufactured and marketed by somebody else.

  • Foster v. American Home Products Corp., 29 F.3d 165, 168, 171 (4th Cir. July 14, 1994) (applying Maryland law).  Promethazine (Phenergan) case.  Innovator manufacturer not liable under negligent misrepresentation theory.
  • Flynn v. American Home Products Corp., 627 N.W.2d 342, 350-52 (Minn. App. May 15, 2001). Fenfluramine (Pondimin) case.  Innovator manufacturer not liable under fraudulent misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, or consumer fraud theories.
  • Beutella v. A.H. Robins Co., 2001 WL 35669202, at *2-3 (Utah Dist. Dec. 10, 2001). Metoclopramide (Reglan) case.  Innovator manufacturer not liable under any (unspecified) theory.
  • DaCosta v. Novartis AG, 2002 WL 31957424, at *8-9 (D. Or. March 1, 2002).  Ergot alkaloid (Migranal) case.  Innovator manufacturer not liable under strict liability, or fraud theories.
  • Block v. Wyeth, Inc., 2003 WL 203067, at *2 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 28, 2003).  Metoclopramide (Reglan) case.  Innovator manufacturer not liable under negligence, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, conspiracy, or malice theories.
  • Sloan v. Wyeth, 2004 WL 5767103, at *?? [most of the opinion] (N.J. Super L.D. Oct. 13, 2004). Metoclopramide (Reglan) case.  Innovator manufacturer not liable under fraud, negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, or consumer fraud theories.
  • Sheeks v. American Home Products Corp., 2004 WL 4056060, at *1-2 (Colo. Dist. Oct. 15, 2004).  Metoclopramide (Reglan) case.  Innovator manufacturer not liable under negligent misrepresentation or statutory products liability theories.
  • Reynolds v. Anton, 2004 WL 5000272, at *?? [at end of opinion] (Ga. Super. Oct. 28, 2004) (Westlaw didn’t provide jump cites to state trial orders for a time, which ticks us off).  Methylphenidate (Ritalin) case.  Innovator manufacturer not liable under overpromotion or any other theory for failure of proximate causation.
  • Kelly v. Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories Co., 2005 WL 4056740, at *2-5 (Mass. Super. May 6, 2005).  Metoclopramide (Reglan) case.  Innovator manufacturer not liable under products liability, negligence, Restatement (Second) of Torts §323 (1965), negligent misrepresentation, breach of warranty, or consumer fraud.
  • Tarver v. Wyeth, Inc., 2005 WL 4052382, at *2 (Mag. W.D. La. June 7, 2005), adopted, 2006 WL 1517546, at *2-3 (W.D. La. Jan. 26, 2006).  Metoclopramide (Reglan) case.  Innovator manufacturer not liable under statutory product liability or negligent misrepresentation theories.
  • Sharp v. Leichus, 2006 WL 515532, at *2-6 (Fla. Cir. Feb. 17, 2006), aff’d per curiam, 952 So.2d 555 (Fla. App. Jan 22, 2007).  Metoclopramide (Reglan) case.  Innovator manufacturer not liable under fraud, negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, or market share theories.
  • Possa v. Eli Lilly & Co., 2006 WL 6393160, at *1, slip op. at 2-3 (M.D. La. May 10, 2006).  Fluoxetine (Prozac) case.  Innovator manufacturer not liable under statutory product liability theory.
  • Colacicco v. Apotex, Inc., 432 F. Supp.2d 514, 539-43 (E.D. Pa. May 25, 2006), aff’d on other grounds, 521 F.3d 253 (3d Cir. 2008), vacated on other grounds, 556 U.S. 1101 (2009).  Paroxetine (Paxil) case.  Innovator manufacturer not liable under all (negligence, negligence per se, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, consumer fraud, infliction of emotional distress, or implied warranty) theories for lack of duty or causation.
  • Goldych v. Eli Lilly & Co., 66 Fed. R. Serv.3d 799, 2006 WL 2038436, at *3-8 (N.D.N.Y. July 19, 2006).  Fluoxetine (Prozac) case. Innovator manufacturer not liable under negligence, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, fraudulent concealment, or consumer fraud theories.
  • LeBlanc v. Wyeth, Inc., 2006 WL 2883030, at *5-6 (W.D. La. Oct. 5, 2006).  Amiodarone (Cordarone) case.  Innovator manufacturer not liable under statutory product liability theory.
  • Adamson v. Ortho-McNeil Pharmaceutical, Inc., 463 F. Supp.2d 496, 505 (D.N.J. Nov. 16, 2006), reconsideration denied, 2007 WL 604790 (D.N.J. Feb. 20, 2007).  TriNessa (Tri-Cyclen) non-personal injury case.  Innovator manufacturer not liable under consumer fraud theory for not advertising that generic drug was available more cheaply.
  • Rossi v. Hoffmann-LaRoche, 2007 WL 7632318, slip op. at 9-13 (N.J. Super. L.D. Jan. 3, 2007).  Mefloquine (Lariam) case.  Innovator manufacturer not liable to generic manufacturer in cross-claim under statutory product liability, consumer fraud, failure to warn, contribution, or indemnity.
  • Barnhill v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., 2007 WL 5787186, at *2-3 (S.D. Ala. April 24, 2007).  Cephalexin (Keflex) case. Innovator manufacturer not liable under Restatement (Second) of Torts §402B (1965), strict liability, negligence, failure to test, failure to train physicians, express warranty, or implied warranty theories.  Not overruled by Weeks.
  • Green v. Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 2007 WL 6428717, at *1 (Ala. Cir. May 14, 2007).  Metoclopramide (Reglan) case.  Innovator manufacturer not liable under any (unspecified) theory.  Overruled by Weeks as to fraudulent misrepresentation.
  • Clark v. Pfizer, Inc., 2008 WL 7668730 (Pa. C.P. March 17, 2008). vGabapentin (Neurontin) non-personal injury case.  Innovator manufacturer not liable under warranty theory. Name brand manufacturer could be liable under negligent misrepresentation or intentional misrepresentation theories for sums paid to generic manufacturers for off-label uses.
  • Swicegood v. Pliva, Inc., 543 F. Supp.2d 1351, 1354-59 (N.D. Ga. April 2, 2008).  Metoclopramide (Reglan) case.  Innovator manufacturer not liable under strict liability, negligence, fraudulent misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, Restatement (Second) of Torts §324A (1965), concealment, or implied warranty theories.
  • Pustejovsky v. Wyeth, Inc., 2008 WL 1314902, at *2 (N.D. Tex. April 3, 2008).  Metoclopramide (Reglan) case.  Innovator manufacturer not liable under statutory product liability, negligence, fraud, or misrepresentation theories.  Affirmed on other grounds, 623 F.3d 271 (5th Cir. 2010).
  • Stanley v. Wyeth, Inc., 991 So.2d 31, 33-35 (La. App. May 2, 2008).  Amiodarone (Cordarone) case.  Innovator manufacturer not liable under statutory product liability or negligent misrepresentation theories.
  • Westerlund v. Wyeth, Inc., 2008 WL 5592753, at *3 (N.J. Super. Law Div. Oct. 20, 2008).  Amiodarone (Cordarone) case.  Innovator manufacturer not liable under statutory product liability or any other theory.
  • Buchanan v. Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 2008 WL 7136137, slip op. at 1 (Ala. Cir. Dale Co. October 20, 2008).  Metoclopramide (Reglan) case.  Innovator manufacturer not liable under any theory.  Overruled by Weeks as to fraudulent misrepresentation.
  • Conte v. Wyeth, Inc., 85 Cal. Rptr.3d 299, 309-311 (Cal. App. Nov. 7, 2008), review denied (Cal. Jan. 21, 2009).  Metoclopramide (Reglan) case.  Innovator manufacturer not liable under strict liability theory. Innovator manufacturer may be liable under negligent misrepresentation or fraudulent misrepresentation theories.
  • Huck v. Trimark Physicians Group, 2009 WL 3760458, slip op. at 1-2 (Iowa Dist. Feb. 27, 2009).  Metoclopramide (Reglan) case.  Innovator manufacturer not liable under any (unspecified) theories.  Affirmed see below.
  • Cousins v. Wyeth Pharmaceutical, Inc., 2009 WL 648703, at *2 (N.D. Tex. March 10, 2009).  Metoclopramide (Reglan) case.  Innovator manufacturer not liable under any (unspecified) theories for lack of duty.
  • Schrock v. Wyeth, Inc., 601 F. Supp.2d 1262, 1266 (W.D. Okla. March 11, 2009). Metoclopramide (Reglan) case.  Innovator manufacturer not liable under any (unspecified) theory for failure of causation.  Affirmed - see below.
  • Moretti v. Wyeth, Inc., 2009 WL 749532, at *3-4 (D. Nev. March 20, 2009).  Metoclopramide (Reglan) case.  Innovator manufacturer not liable under Restatement (Second) of Torts §§310, 311, 323 (1965), misrepresentation by omission, constructive fraud, negligent misrepresentation, or fraudulent concealment theories.  Conte rejected as contrary to law and policy.  Affirmed see below.
  • Short v. Eli Lilly & Co., 2009 WL 9867531, at *4-9, slip op. (Ind. Super. Marion Co. March 25, 2009).  Fluoxetine (Prozac) case.  Innovator manufacturer not liable under statutory product liability or misrepresentation theories.  Conte rejected as contrary to law.
  • Fields v. Wyeth, Inc., 613 F. Supp.2d 1056, 1060-61 (W.D. Ark. May 11, 2009). Metoclopramide (Reglan) case.  Innovator manufacturer not liable under statutory product liability, strict liability, negligence, fraudulent misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, or implied warranty theories.
  • Stoddard v. Wyeth, Inc., 630 F. Supp.2d 631, 633-34 (E.D.N.C. June 24, 2009).  Metoclopramide (Reglan) case.  Innovator manufacturer not liable under express warranty, implied warranty, negligence, negligent omission, negligent misrepresentation, negligent undertaking, fraud, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, or consumer fraud theories.
  • Bartlett v. Mutual Pharmaceutical Co., 659 F. Supp.2d 279, 309 n.40 (D.N.H. Sept. 30, 2009). Sulindac case.  Dictum recognizing "widespread rejection" of theories of "innovator liability."
  • Burke v. Wyeth, Inc., 2009 WL 3698480, at *2-3 (S.D. Tex. Oct. 29, 2009).  Metoclopramide (Reglan) case.  Innovator manufacturer not liable under statutory product liability, negligence, strict liability, implied warranty, misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, consumer fraud, or gross negligence. Conte rejected as anomalous and contrary to law.
  • Meade v. Parsley, 2009 WL 3806716, at *2-3 (slip op.) (S.D.W. Va. Nov. 13, 2009).  Metoclopramide (Reglan) case.  Innovator manufacturer not liable under strict liability, breach of express and implied warranties, negligence, misrepresentation, fraud, consumer fraud, or intentional infliction of emotional distress.  Conte is considered and rejected.
  • Morris v. Wyeth, Inc., 2009 WL 4064103, at *4-6 (slip op.) (W.D. La. Nov. 23, 2009).  Metoclopramide (Reglan) case.  Innovator manufacturer not liable under statutory product liability theory (within which all other causes of action are subsumed).
  • Mensing v. Wyeth, Inc., 588 F.3d 603, 612-14 (8th Cir. Nov. 27, 2009) (affirming 2008 WL 4724286).  Metoclopramide (Reglan) case.  Innovator manufacturer not liable for various common law torts including negligent representation and fraud.  Reaffirmed in pertinent part and vacated in part on other grounds, 658 F.3d 867 (8th Cir. Sept. 29, 2011).
  • Dietrich v. Wyeth, Inc., 2009 WL 4924722, slip op. at 3-6 (Fla. Cir. 15th Cir. Dec. 21, 2009).  Metoclopramide (Reglan) case.  Innovator manufacturers not liable for negligence, strict liability, breach of warranties, misrepresentation and fraud, and negligence per se. Conte rejected as a "lone outlier against the overwhelming weight of authority."  Id. at 10.
  • Levine v. Wyeth, Inc., 684 F. Supp.2d 1338, 1344-46 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 10, 2010), adopting magistrate's report in Metoclopramide (Reglan) case.  Innovator manufacturers not liable for negligence, negligence per se, strict liability, breach of warranties, component part liability, misrepresentation and fraud.  Conte rejected as "run[ning] counter to the overwhelming majority of case law."  Report at 7.
  • Goodridge v. Pfizer Canada, Inc., No. 06-CV-307728CP, slip op. (Ont. Super. Feb. 18, 2010). Gabapentin (Neurontin) case.  Innovator manufacturers not liable for negligence under Canadian law where plaintiff only took generic drug.  Other theories of liabilty are not recognized in Canada.  American precedent not discussed.  Paragraphs 62-105.
  • Couick v. Wyeth, Inc., 691 F. Supp.2d 643, 645-46 (W.D.N.C. March 8, 2010).  Metoclopramide (Reglan) case.  Innovator manufacturers not liable for negligence, misrepresentation by omission, negligent misrepresentation, constructive fraud, fraud by concealment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, unfair and deceptive trade practices, or breach of express and implied warranties under North Carolina's statutory product liability statute.
  • Hardy v. Wyeth, Inc., 2010 WL 1049588, at *2-5 (Mag. E.D. Tex. March 8, 2010), adopted, 2010 WL 1222183 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 29, 2010).  Metoclopramide (Reglan) case.  Innovator manufacturers not liable on any theory (unspecified).  Conte rejected as "not persua[sive]."
  • Howe v. Wyeth Inc., 2010 WL 1708857, at *3-4 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 26, 2010).  Metoclopramide (Reglan) case.  Innovator manufacturers not liable for negligence, strict liability, breach of warranties, fraud, and negligence per se.  Following Levine v. Wyeth, above.
  • Finnicum v. Wyeth, Inc., 708 F. Supp.2d 616, 620-22 (E.D. Tex. April 28, 2010).  Metoclopramide (Reglan) case.  Innovator manufacturers not liable for negligence, strict products liability, breach of warranty, fraud, and consumer fraud.  Conte rejected as "stretch[ing] the concept of foreseeability too far."
  • Negron v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., 2010 WL 8357563, slip op. at 1-2 (Tex. Dist. Dallas Co. May 7, 2010).  Metoclopramide (Reglan) case.  Innovator manufacturers not liable under any theory.
  • Craig v. Pfizer, Inc., 2010 WL 2649545, at *2-4 (Mag. E.D. La. May 26, 2010), adopted, 2010 WL 2649544 (W.D. La. June 29, 2010).  Metoclopramide (Reglan) case.  Innovator manufacturers not liable under statutory product liability, consumer fraud, breach of warranty, or fraud and misrepresentation.
  • Phelps v. Wyeth, Inc., 2010 WL 2553619, at *2-3 (Mag. D. Or. May 28, 2010), adopted, 2010 WL 2553614 (D. Or. June 21, 2010).  Metoclopramide (Reglan) case.  Summary judgment granted.  Innovator manufacturers not liable for negligence, strict liability, breach of warranties, misrepresentation and fraud, or gross negligence.  Conte is "not persuasive."  Reconsideration denied, post-Mensingslip op. at *3-5 (D. Or. Nov. 23, 2011).  Foster remains good law after Mensing, there remains no basis for liability.  Adopted a second time on the same grounds.  857 F. Supp.2d 1114, 1120-22 (D. Or. April 24, 2012) (also rejecting Conte).
  • Mosley v. Wyeth, Inc., 719 F. Supp.2d 1340, 1345-51 (S.D. Ala. June 28, 2010).   Metoclopramide (Reglan) case.  Innovator manufacturers not liable for negligent misrepresentation, fraud, or warranty theories.  Overruled by Weeks.
  • Neal v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., 2010 WL 2640170, at *2 (W.D. Ark. July 1, 2010).   Metoclopramide (Reglan) case.  Innovator manufacturers not liable for statutory product liability, negligence, breach of warranties, express and implied, negligent and fraudulent misrepresentation, and gross negligence.
  • Fisher v. Pelstring, 2010 WL 2998474, at *2-9 (D.S.C. July 28, 2010).  Metoclopramide (Reglan) case.  Innovator manufacturers not liable for strict liability, negligence, fraud, fraudulent concealment, constructive fraud, consumer fraud, misrepresentation, breach of express or implied warranty, breach of undertaking, or intentional infliction of emotional distress.  Conte is in direct conflict with the weight of authority.
  • Kellogg v. Wyeth, 762 F. Supp.2d 694, 705-08 (D. Vt. Oct. 20, 2010).  Metoclopramide (Reglan) case.   Innovator manufacturers can be liable under Vermont law for negligence or fraud, but not strict liability, where the prescribers testified they relied upon "drug manufacturers" for warnings, even though the plaintiff did not ingest a name brand drug.
  • Cooper v. Wyeth, Inc., 2010 WL 4318816, at *2-3, slip op. (M.D. La. Oct. 26, 2010).  Metoclopramide (Reglan) case.  Innovator manufacturers not liable under statutory product liability theory, and no other theories are recognized.
  • Gross v. Pfizer, Inc., 2010 WL 4485774, at *2-3, slip op. (D. Md. Nov. 9, 2010).  Metoclopramide (Reglan) case.  Innovator manufacturers not liable for negligence, breach of warranty, strict product liability, and misrepresentation.  Conte is a minority view and Maryland would not follow it.  Reconsideration denied, 2011 WL 4005266 (D. Md. Sept. 7, 2011), Mensing does not require reconsideration, as there is no claim under Maryland law.
  • Simpson v. Wyeth, Inc., 2010 WL 5485812, at *3-5 (N.D. Ala. Dec. 9, 2010).  Metoclopramide (Reglan) case.  Innovator manufacturers not liable for misrepresentation, fraud by concealment or suppression and failure to warn.  Overruled by Weeks as to fraudulent misrepresentation.
  • Overton v. Wyeth, Inc., 2011 WL 1343392, at *6-7 (Mag. S.D. Ala. March 15, 2011), adopted, 2011 WL 1343391 (S.D. Ala. April 7, 2011).  Metoclopramide (Reglan) case.  Innovator manufacturers not liable for fraudulent or negligent misrepresentation, or breach of warranty.  Overruled by Weeks as to fraudulent misrepresentation.
  • Smith v. Wyeth, Inc., 657 F.3d. 420, 423-24 (6th Cir. Sept. 22, 2011) (applying Kentucky law).  Metoclopramide (Reglan) case.  Innovator manufacturers not liable for fraud, fraudulent concealment, or tortious misrepresentation for failure to warn about risks of a product that did not cause the plaintiff's injury.  Just because a company is in the same business as a tortfeasor does not make it automatically liable for harm caused by that tortfeasor's product.  Rejecting Conte.
  • Morris v. Wyeth, Inc., 2011 WL 4975317, at *3-4 (W.D. La. Oct. 19, 2011).  Metoclopramide (Reglan) case.  Mensing does not change Louisiana law which does not impose a duty upon an innovator drug manufacturer running to the consumer of a generic product that did not take the defendant's drug.  Barring claims for negligent misrepresentation under Louisiana common law.
  • Metz v. Wyeth, Inc., 830 F. Supp.2d 1291, 1293-95 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 18, 2011).  Metoclopramide (Reglan) case.  Innovator manufacturers not liable for negligence, strict liability, breach of warranty, misrepresentation, fraud, or negligence per se for failure to warn about risks of a product that did not cause the plaintiff's injury.  Foster remains good law, as preemption was hardly central to that court's decision.  Innovator manufacturers owe no duty of care to generic drug consumers.  That generic claims may be preempted does does not compel a change in state law concerning innovator drugs.  Affirmed by unpublished order, No. 12-13321, slip op. (11th Cir. Aug. 1, 2013).
  • Moore v. Mylan, Inc., 840 F. Supp.2d 1337, 1344 (N.D. Ga. Jan. 5, 2012).  Phenytoin (Dilantin) case.  Plaintiff's complaint dismissed because it did not specify any manufacturer.  Strict liability and negligence claims dismissed.  Plaintiff may file an amended complaint complying with this ruling.
  • In re Darvocet, Darvon & Propoxyphene Products Liability Litigation, 856 F. Supp.2d 904, 910-13 (E.D. Ky. Feb. 5, 2012).  Propoxyphene (Darvon/Darvocet) case.  Innovator manufacturers not liable under Georgia, Louisiana, Indiana, Kentucky, New Jersey, and Texas law for any claim involving a plaintiff that did not ingest its product.  Product identification is a fundamental element of all product related torts.  Fraud and misrepresentation are product liability claims subject to the product identification requirement.  Innovator manufacturers owe no duty to consumers of generic products.  Conte and Kellogg are a minority view.  Federalism does not allow diversity courts to expand state-law liability.  Affirmed, 2014 WL 2959271, see below.
  • In re Darvocet, Darvon & Propoxyphene Products Liability Litigation, 2012 WL 767595, at *2-9 (E.D. Ky. March 7, 2012).  Propoxyphene (Darvon/Darvocet) case.  Under Connecticut, Georgia, Indiana, Mississippi, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas law, original name innovator manufacturer owes no duty to and is not liable for any claim involving a plaintiff that did not ingest its product.  Allegations that the original manufacturer continued to make some product for its successor and for generic manufacturers are not enough without corresponding allegations that the defendant made the particular drug that the plaintiff took.  Without allegations that the product was mis-manufactured, there is no liability because warning claims are preempted.  Affirmed, 2014 WL 2959271, see below.
  • Lukas-Werner v. Novo Nordisk, A/S, No. 1009-13177, transcript at 25-26 (Or. Cir. Multnomah Co. May 11, 2012).  17 Beta Estradial (Activella) case.  Innovator manufacturers not liable for negligence for failing to warn someone who didn't take their drugs.  Affirmed see below.
  • Condouris v. Wyeth, 2012 WL 2401776, slip op. (N.J. Super. Law Div. June 26, 2012).  Metoclopramide (Reglan) case.  Innovator manufacturers not liable for negligence for failing to warn someone who didn't take their drugs.  All actions attacking product warnings are "product liability" actions under the New Jersey product liability statute.  Mensing has no effect on state law.   Conte is not New Jersey law.
  • Lashley v. Pfizer, Inc.877 F. Supp.2d 466, 471-76 (S.D. Miss. June 27, 2012).  Metoclopramide (Reglan) case.  Innovator manufacturers not liable under statutory product liability misrepresentation theories and all common-law theories are subsumed.  Affirmed 750 F.3d 470 (5th Cir. 2014), see below.
  • Lyman v. Pfizer, Inc., 2012 WL 2970627, at *17-18 (D. Vt. July 20, 2012).  Metoclopramide (Reglan) case.  Even under a Conte rationale, reliance on an innovator manufacturer's old warnings or statements, where current warnings have materially changed, is not justifiable as a matter of law.  Summary judgment granted on lack of reliance.
  • Strayhorn v. Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 882 F. Supp.2d 1020, 1028-31  (W.D. Tenn. Aug. 8, 2012).  Metoclopramide (Reglan) case.  Innovator manufacturers not liable under statutory product liability theories.  To the extent that common-law theories for negligence, fraud, misrepresentation, suppression, constructive fraud, breach of warranty, or misrepresentation survive the statute, they fail to state a claim where the plaintiff neither purchased nor used an innovator product.  Conte is an "extreme outlier," and a federal court sitting in diversity should not expand state law.  Affirmed.
  • Eckhardt v. Qualitest Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 889 F. Supp.2d 901, 905-10 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 9, 2012).  Metoclopramide (Reglan) case.  Innovator manufacturers not liable under statututory product liability theories for other, generic products.  Misrepresentation-related claims are statutory product liability claims.  To the extent common-law claims exist, innovator manufacturers are not liable for generic drug warnings under theories of negligence, misrepresentation, fraud, participatory liability, suppression of evidence, warranty or consumer fraud.  Affirmed, ___ F.3d ___, 2014 WL 1908651, below.
  • In re Darvocet, Darvon & Propoxyphene Products Liability Litigation, 2012 WL 3610237, at *3-4 (E.D. Ky. Aug. 21, 2012).  Propoxyphene (Darvon/Darvocet) case.  Under Arkansas, Connecticut, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Texas, and West Virginia law, innovator manufacturers not liable for any claim involving a plaintiff that did not ingest its product.  Product identification is a fundamental element of all product related torts.  Misrepresentation of a product is a product liability claim subject to the product identification requirement.  No relevant state has adopted Conte.  Federalism does not allow diversity courts to expand state-law liability.  Affirmed, 2014 WL 2959271, see below.
  • Phares v. Actavis-Elizabeth LLC892 F. Supp.2d 835, 843-46 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 30, 2012).  Metoclopramide (Reglan) case.  All claims involving products are "product liability" claims.  Innovator manufacturers not liable under statututory product liability theories for other, generic products.
  • In re Darvocet, Darvon & Propoxyphene Products Liability Litigation, 2012 WL 3842045, at *4-8 (E.D. Ky. Sept. 5, 2012).  Propoxyphene (Darvon/Darvocet) case. Innovator manufacturers not liable for any claim involving a plaintiff that did not ingest its product under Arizona, North Carolina, South Carolina, Nebraska, New Jersey, West Virginia, Florida, and New Hampshire law.  Affirmed, 2014 WL 2959271, see below.
  • In re Darvocet, Darvon & Propoxyphene Products Liability Litigation, 2012 WL 3842271, at *5-7 (E.D. Ky. Sept. 5, 2012).  Propoxyphene (Darvon/Darvocet) case.  Innovator manufacturers sued by California plaintiffs might be liable under Conte for injuries from a generic product.  A California trial court is obligated to apply ConteO'Neill asbestos case is distinguishable.
  • Baymiller v. Ranbaxy Pharmaceuticals Inc., 894 F. Supp.2d 1302, 1307-11 (D. Nev. Sept. 6, 2012). Paroxetine (Plavix) case. Innovator manufacturers not liable under any theory (strict liability, negligence, warranty, fraud/negligent misrepresentation, elder abuse) for not warning someone who didn't take their drugs. Conte stands alone and is contrary to Nevada law and public policy.
  • Del Valle v. Pliva, Inc., 2012 WL 4747259, at *5-8 (S.D. Tex. Sept. 12, 2012).  Metoclopramide (Reglan) case.  All claims involving products are "product liability" claims.  Innovator manufacturers not liable under statututory product liability theories for other, generic products.  Conte is inapplicable to the Texas statute.  Affirmed ___ F. Appx. ___, Nos. 12-60861, 12-41148, slip op. (5th Cir. Feb. 21, 2014), see below.
  • Hogue v. Pfizer, Inc., 893 F. Supp.2d 914, 917-19  (S.D. Ohio Sept. 27, 2012).  Metoclopramide (Reglan) case.  All non-statutory product liability claims have been abolished.  All claims relating to a product are product liability claims.  Non-active fraud, resembling failure to warn, is a product-related claim abolished by OPLA.  The statute requires that the defendant have manufactured the product.  There is no exception for inventors or "primary manufacturers."  Mensing has no bearing on the scope of state product liability law.
  • Madden v. Teva Pharmaceuticals, USA, Inc., 2012 WL 4757253, slip op. (Pa. C.P. Phila. Co. Oct. 1, 2012).  Zolpidem (Ambien) case.  Innovator manufacturers not liable under Washington state product liability statute (which subsumes common-law theories such as negligence and misrepresentation) for not warning someone who didn't take their drugs.  The "relevant product" is the one to which the plaintiff was exposed.  Innovator liability for generic drug injury has been overwhelmingly rejected.
  • In re Darvocet, Darvon & Propoxyphene Products Liability Litigation, 2012 WL 4831632, at *2-3 (E.D. Ky. Oct. 10, 2012).  Propoxyphene (Darvon/Darvocet) case.   Innovator manufacturers not liable for any claim involving a plaintiff that did not ingest its product under Arizona, Florida, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, or West Virginia law.  One case where ingestion of a branded drug was alleged survives dismissal.  Misrepresentation claims cannot exist against a defendant that did not manufacture the product that the plaintiff ingested.  Affirmed, 2014 WL 2959271, see below.
  • Demahy v. Schwarz Pharma, Inc., 702 F.3d 177, 183-84 (5th Cir. Oct. 25, 2012).  Metoclopramide (Reglan) case.  The Supreme Court's Mensing preemption decision did not impair Foster, which was a case interpreting Maryland common law.  Even if it did, Louisiana law does not hold manufacturers liable to plaintiffs that did not use their products.
  • Gardley-Starks v. Pfizer, Inc., 917 F. Supp.2d 597, 601-04 (N.D. Miss. Jan. 10, 2013).  Metoclopramide (Reglan) case.  Innovator manufacturers not liable under Mississippi state product liability statute (which subsumes common-law theories such as negligence and misrepresentation) for not warning someone who didn't take their drugs. 
  • Washington v. Medicis Pharmaceuticals Corp., 2013 WL 496063, at *3-4 (S.D. Miss. Feb. 7, 2013).  Minocycline (Minocin/Solodyn) case.   Innovator manufacturers not liable under Mississippi product liability statute under any product liability theory.  Innovator liability has not been recognized.  Conte is a minority view.
  • Bennett v. Hoffmann-LaRoche Inc., 2013 WL 1191899, at *3-6 (E.D.N.C. March 22, 2013).  Mefloquine (Lariam) case.  Innovator manufactuer cannot be liable under North Carolina product liability statute under any product liability theory because it is not responsible for injuries stemming from the use of another manufacgturer's generic bioequivalent.  Plaintiff produced sufficient product identification evidence to survive summary judgment
  • Chatman v. Pfizer, Inc., 960 F. Supp.2d 641, 652-55 (S.D. Miss. March 27, 2013). Metoclopramide (Reglan) case.   Innovator manufacturers not liable under Mississippi state product liability statute (which subsumes common-law theories such as negligence and misrepresentation) for not warning someone who didn't take their drugs.  However, innovators.  However, to the extent that defendant's label included affirmative misstatements, not omissions, it is possible that plaintiff could state a claim for misrepresentation.  Note: Chatman is no longer good law as the Fifth Circuit rejected the same argument in Lashley.
  • Huck v. Trimark Physicians Group, 834 N.W.2d 82 (table), 2013 WL 1749774, at *3-4, slip op. (Iowa App. April 24, 2013).  Metoclopramide (Reglan) case.   Innovator manufacturers not liable for any claim involving a plaintiff that did not ingest its product.  Mensing does not change state law.  Regardless of the theory of liability, such as strict liability, negligence, misrepresentation, or breach of warranties only the product manufacturer is liable for product-related injuries.  Affirmed, see below.
  • Bell v. Pfizer, Inc., 716 F.3d 1087, 1092-93 (8th Cir. June 14, 2013). Metoclopramide (Reglan) case.   Innovator manufacturers not liable under Arkansas state product liability statute for failure-to-warn, negligence, strict liability; breach of implied warranties, misrepresentation, suppression of evidence, fraud, and gross negligence.  The statute applies to any theory involving a product and requires that the plaintiff have used the product.  Affirming 2011 WL 904161.
  • Guarino v. Wyeth, 719 F.3d 1245, 1251-53 (11th Cir. June 25, 2013).   Metoclopramide (Reglan) case.   Affirming summary judgment.  An innovator manufacturer is not liable under Florida law for negligence, strict liability, breach of warranty, misrepresentation and fraud, or negligence per se where it did not make the product that allegedly injured the plaintiff.  A "mountain of authority" supports rejection of innovator liability.  Affirming, 2012 WL 1138631.
  • Fullington v. PLIVA, Inc., 720 F.3d 739, 744 (8th Cir. July 15, 2013).  Metoclopramide (Reglan) case.   Affirming summary judgment.  Innovator manufacturers not liable under Arkansas state product liability statute for strict liability, negligence, misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, suppression of evidence, and breach of the implied warranties.  Only the manufacturer of the product taken by the plaintiff may be sued under the Arkansas statute.  Affirming 2010 WL 3632747 (E.D. Ark. Sept. 17, 2010), reconsideration denied, 2011 WL 6153608 (E.D. Ark. Dec. 12, 2011). 
  • In re Darvocet, Darvon & Propoxyphene Products Liability Litigation, No. 2:11-md-2226-DCR, 2013 WL 5184129, at *2, slip op. (E.D. Ky. July 29, 2013).  Propoxyphene (Darvon/Darvocet) case.    Innovator manufacturers not liable for misrepresentation claims involving a plaintiff that did not ingest its product under Georgia or Texas law.
  • Neeley v. Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc., 2013 WL 3929059, at *20-24, slip op. (E.D. Mo. July 29, 2013).  Metoclopramide (Reglan) case.  Granting summary judgment.  An innovator manufacturer is not liable under Kentucky law for negligence, negligent misrepresentation, negligent supply of information for the guidance of others, breach of warranty, misrepresentation, fraud, or strict liability.
  • Schrock v. Wyeth, Inc., 727 F.3d 1273, 1281-84 (10th Cir. Aug. 28, 2013).  Metoclopramide (Reglan) case.  Summary judgment affirmed.   Innovator manufacturers not liable under Oklahoma law for negligence, strict product liability, breach of warranties, misrepresentation, or fraud.  Federal courts should not recognize novel expansions of state law.   Affirming 601 F. Supp.2d 1262.
  • Weese v. Pfizer, Inc., 2013 WL 5691993, at *2 (N.Y. Sup. Oct. 8, 2013).  Sertraline (Zoloft) case.  Motion to dismiss granted.  Innovator manufacturers not liable under any (unspecified, except for voluntary assumption of duty) theory.
  • Tillman v. Woldenberg Village, Inc., 2013 WL 6198864, at *5, slip op. (E.D. La. Nov. 27, 2013).  Phenytoin (Dilantin) case.  Motion for judgment on the pleadings granted.  Innovator manufacturers not liable under Louisiana product liability statute on any theory for products they did not manufacture. 
  • Strayhorn v. Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, 737 F.3d 387, 401-06 (6th Cir. Dec. 2, 2013).  Metoclopramide (Reglan) case.   Summary judgment affirmed.   An innovator manufacturer is not liable under the Tennessee product liability statute for negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent misrepresentation, express or implied warranty.  Conte is an outlier.  Federal courts should not recognize novel expansions of state law.  Affirming 882 F. Supp.2d 1020.
  • Lashley & Del Valle v. Pfizer, Inc., 750 F.3d 470, 470-78 (5th Cir. Feb. 21, 2014).  Metoclopramide (Reglan) case. Summary judgment affirmed in two cases.  An innovator manufacturer is not liable under the Mississippi product liability statute or under Texas law under any theory for injuries caused by the ingestion of generic products that the defendants did not manufacture.
  • Dolin v. SmithKlineBeecham Corp., 2014 WL 804458, slip op. (N.D. Ill. Feb. 28 2014).  Paroxetine (Paxil) case.  Summary judgment granted in part and denied in part.  An innovator manufacturer cannot be liable under Illinois product liability law for injuries caused by a product they did not manufacture.  The innovator might be liable under common-law negligence, which is separate from product liability.
  • Stewart v. Sanofi Aventis U.S., LLC, ___ F. Supp.2d ___, 2014 WL 1400235. at *2-4 (N.D. Ala. April 10, 2014).  Zolpidem (Ambien) case.  Judgment on the pleadings granted.  An innovator manufacturer is not liable under the Indiana product liability statute for failure to warn about a product it did not manufacture.
  • Eckhardt v. Qualitest Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 751 F.3d 674, 680-82 (5th Cir. May 13, 2004).  Metoclopramide (Reglan) case.   Summary judgment affirmed.  Innovator manufacturers not liable under Texas product liability statute, common-law negligenct misrepresentation, or fraud to plaintiffs who ingested only generic products.   There is no duty.  Affirming, 889 F. Supp.2d 901, above.
  • Hendricks v. Pharmacia Corp., 2014 WL 2515478, at *5-6 (Mag. S.D. Ohio June 4, 2014).  Phenytoin (Dilantin) case.  Motion to dismiss granted. Innovator manufacturers not liable under the Ohio product liability statute.
  • Colas v. Abbvie, Inc., No. 14 C 1452, slip op., at 3-5 (N.D. Ill. June 13, 2014).  Biaxin (clarithromycin) case.  Motion to dismiss granted in part.  An innovator manufacturer cannot be liable under Virginia law for failure to warn or negligence per se for injuries caused by a product it did not manufacture.  Fraud claims allowed to continue without discussion of product identification.
  • Moretti v. Wyeth, Inc., ___ F. Appx. ___, 2014 WL 2726886, slip op. at 2-3 (9th Cir. June 17, 2009). Metoclopramide (Reglan) case.   Summary judgment affirmed.  Innovator manufacturer not liable under Nevada law for misrepresentation by omission, constructive fraud, negligent misrepresentation, or fraudulent concealment theories. Non-manufacturers are under no duty to disclose regarding other person's products.
  • In re Darvocet, Darvon, & Propoxyphene Products Liability Litigation, ___ F.3d ___, 2014 WL 2959271, slip op. (6th Cir. June 27, 2014).  Propoxyphene (Darvon/Darvocet) cases.   Innovator manufacturers not liable for misrepresentation claims involving plaintiffs that did not ingest its product under Arkansas, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, or West Virginia law.  Federalism does not allow diversity courts to expand state-law liability.  If misrepresentation claims are considered to be product liability claims, then product identification is a fundamental element of all product related torts.  If misrepresentation claims are not considered to be product liability claims, then innovator manufacturers owe no duties to consumers of competing generic products.   Conte and Kellogg are a minority view.  Dolin is regected.    One case where ingestion of a branded drug was alleged survives dismissal.
  • Huck v. Wyeth, Inc., ___ N.W.2d ___, 2014 WL 3377071, at *12-23, slip op. (Iowa July 11, 2014).  Metoclopramide (Reglan) case.  Innovator liabilty not recognized under product liability, negligence (Restatement Third, Physical Harm §7), negligent misrepresentation (Restatement Second §552), or fraud.  Allowing such liability would turn the law upside down.  Conte and Weeks are outliers.  Extensive policy discussion.  Note:  This is a 3-1-3 decision.
  • Johnson v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., ___ F.3d ___, 2014 WL 3397786, at *5-7, slip op. (5th Cir. July 11, 2014).  Metoclopramide (Reglan) case. Innovator manufacturers not liable under Louisiana product liability statute.  Innovator manufacturers owe no duties to persons taking generic drugs.
  • Willis v. Schwarz-Pharma, Inc., ___ F. Supp.2d ___, 2014 WL 3724798, at *4-7 (E.D. Tex. July 23, 2014). Metoclopramide (Reglan) case. Innovator manufacturers not liable under Texas product liability statute for warning defects, negligence, implied warranty, and fraud.  Texas law does not impose duties on those who did not supply the product alleged to cause injury.
  • Wyeth, Inc. v. Weeks, ___ So.3d ___, 2014 WL 4055813, No. 1101397 (Ala. Aug. 15, 2014). Metoclopramide (Reglan) case. Innovator manufacturers not liable under AMELD for failure to warn of risks of generic drugs. Innovator manufacturers may be liable under separate misrepresentation theories.

No comments: