United States: Supreme Court Strengthens Preemption Defense For Manufacturers

In Wyeth v. Levine, 555 U.S. 555 (2009), the United States Supreme Court held that certain failure to warn claims against manufacturers of brand-name pharmaceuticals were not preempted by the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. This past week, the Supreme Court reached the opposite conclusion with respect to manufacturers of generic pharmaceuticals. In so holding, the Court clarified that "impossibility" preemption (where it is impossible to comply with both federal and state law) may preclude state law claims unless a manufacturer can unilaterally comply with both federal and state law.

In Pliva v. Mensing, 564 U.S. ___ (2011), the plaintiffs had been prescribed Reglan in 2001 and 2002, and had received the generic form of that drug, metoclopramide, from their pharmacists. Plaintiffs later developed tardive dyskinesia, a neurological disorder. They filed suit against the manufacturers of metoclopramide arguing that the drug caused their disorder and the manufacturers failed to provide adequate warnings labels.

In order to obtain approval from the Food and Drug Administration ("FDA"), manufacturers of a "new drug" must demonstrate that the drug is safe and effective. This can be a lengthy and expensive process. In 1984, Congress passed the Hatch-Waxman Amendments, which allowed "generic drugs" to obtain approval simply by showing that the drug was "bioequivalent" to an approved brand-name drug, and was identical to the brand-name drug in certain other respects. By statute and regulation, the warnings provided with the generic drug must be identical to the warnings required by the FDA on the brand-name counterpart.

In Pliva, the plaintiffs argued that these warnings were insufficient due to alleged mounting evidence of a relationship between metoclopramide and tardive dyskinesia. The Court assumed for purposes of its decision that the relevant state law required the manufacturers to provide a stronger warning. The manufacturers contended, however, that the plaintiffs' claims were preempted because federal law required their warnings to be identical to those carried by their name-brand counterparts, making it impossible to provide a different, stronger warning. Plaintiffs acknowledged this federal requirement, but argued that the manufacturers had several routes available to them to change their labels upon discovery of new information. As a result, they argued, preemption did not apply. The United States Courts of Appeals for the Fifth and Eighth Circuits agreed with plaintiffs and found no preemption. In a 5–4 decision, the Supreme Court reversed the Courts of Appeals' decisions.

The Court first accepted the FDA's view that the warning labels on generic drugs must always be identical to those on the brand-name drug. As a result, the manufacturers of generic drugs could not use the "changes-being-effected" process (which allows brand-name drug manufacturers to strengthen warnings or instructions without waiting for advance FDA approval) to change their labels, unless they were changing the label to match changes in the brandname labels.

Similarly, the Court adopted the FDA's position that the manufacturers could not provide "Dear Doctor" letters (letters addressed to doctors that provide information about the drug), because those letters qualify as "labels" and necessarily would effect a change from the brand-name labels. The Court concluded that to make a change to its label, the manufacturer of a generic drug would have to propose such a change to the FDA. If the FDA agreed that a change was necessary, it would work with the name-brand manufacturer to revise the label for both the name-brand and generic drugs. Absent agreement from the FDA, however, the manufacturer of a generic drug was not permitted to change its label. It was undisputed in these cases that the manufacturers had not requested such a change with the FDA.

Under this statutory framework, the Court concluded that it was impossible for the manufacturers of generic metoclopramide to comply with both state law and federal law. Assuming that, under state law, the manufacturers were required to provide a stronger warning, they could not have done so without intervention by the FDA and cooperation The majority opinion characterized the issue as "whether conflict preemption should take into account these possible actions by the FDA and the brand-name manufacturer" in determining whether compliance with state law was impossible. Quoting Levine, the Court stated that "[t]he question for 'impossibility' is whether the private party could independently do under federal law what state law requires of it." (emphasis added). Because a label change required action from others, the Court held that the manufacturers could not independently comply with both federal and state law, and therefore preemption was appropriate:

To decide these cases, it is enough to hold that when a party cannot satisfy its state duties without the Federal Government's special permission and assistance, which is dependent on the exercise of judgment by a federal agency, that party cannot independently satisfy those duties for preemption purposes.

The dissent argued that the manufacturers had shown only that they might be unable to comply with both federal and state law. The dissent characterized the conflict here as only "hypothetical or potential" because the manufacturers had never sought FDA approval to have the label changed. The dissent argued that this has never before been sufficient to sustain a defendant's burden of proof on the preemption defense: "the mere possibility of impossibility is not enough." Further, the dissent disagreed that "independent" or "unilateral" action to comply with both state and federal law was required to avoid preemption.

The majority opinion held, however, that if contingencies such as FDA approval could prevent the application of preemption, then conflict preemption could be rendered meaningless. In almost any case, certain contingencies might occur that would allow a manufacturer to comply with both state and federal law. The question therefore is whether it is possible for the manufacturer to take action unilaterally to comply with both federal and state law.

The Court recognized that its decision results in different outcomes depending entirely on which form of the drug — brand-name or generic — was prescribed by a plaintiff's doctor and which form of the drug was provided by the pharmacist. However, the Court explained that these different outcomes are a consequence of differing statutory schemes. "We will not distort the Supremacy Clause in order to create similar preemption across a dissimilar statutory scheme."

This decision reinvigorates a preemption defense that seemingly had been curtailed in Levine.

www.schnader.com

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
 
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions