United States: Universal "Bar Dates" - Dream Or Reality?

Last Updated: February 7 2014
Article by Aaron Rice

Plaintiffs in all fifty states have brought multidistrict litigation (MDL) against your company over a drug it manufactures. The FDA approved a change to the product label over two years ago to warn of the potential association between use of the drug and the injuries at issue in the litigation. Your company sent Dear Doctor letters soon afterward to inform physicians of the label change. National and local media outlets featured the label change prominently in their news coverage for weeks, and advertisements by plaintiffs' law firms have blanketed television and print media for years. Meanwhile, suits alleging warning defects in the former product label — the one your company changed two years ago — continue to mount, even from jurisdictions with two-year statutes of limitations. All of these plaintiffs invoke the discovery rule, which generally tolls the running of the statute of limitations until the date the plaintiff knew, or in the exercise of reasonable diligence, should have known of her injury and its potential causal link to the defendant's product. But did the public events surrounding your company's drug put these plaintiffs on notice of their potential claims and thus trigger all of the relevant statutes of limitations to begin running by a universally applicable date?

During the past ten years, the concept of establishing universal bar dates has slowly but consistently gained acceptance among state and federal courts overseeing pharmaceutical multidistrict and consolidated litigations, with five courts establishing a universal bar date. No bright-line test has emerged for the appropriateness of a universal bar date. Rather, the courts have engaged in fact-intensive inquiries into whether there is a "last possible date" by which all plaintiffs should have known of their potential claims. Courts have considered many factors when establishing bar dates, including the existence of widespread publicity regarding the alleged side effects, Dear Doctor and Dear Patient letters, label changes, press releases, the publication of scientific studies and other medical literature, plaintiffs' attorney advertisements, and even FDA Advisory Panel votes.

1. In Re Diet Drugs Mdl

In the Diet Drugs multidistrict litigation, the plaintiffs filed their claims more than five years after the diet drugs were withdrawn from the market but argued they could not have discovered that the drugs caused their injury within the statute of limitations period.1 The court rejected this argument, noting the "pervasive" and "widespread publicity accompanying the withdrawal of the diet drugs from the market in September, 1997," including extensive local media coverage, "leading stories on major television network news programs, including NBC Nightly News, CBS Evening News, and The Today Show" and a front-page story in USA Today.2 Moreover, the manufacturer, Wyeth, issued a press release, published full-page ads in leading newspapers, and issued a Dear Doctor letter, all advising patients and physicians of the potential association between use of the drugs and valvular heart disease.3

Finally, the court pointed to the "comprehensive publicity campaign surrounding the nationwide class action Settlement Agreement with Wyeth" which lasted until March of 2000.4 Based on these events, the court established a universal bar date coinciding with the end of the publicity campaign in March 2000, finding the campaign "put plaintiffs on inquiry notice that their alleged heart problems would be detectable through an echocardiogram."5

2. In Re Vioxx Mdl

The Vioxx multidistrict litigation involved an "avalanche of media coverage" regarding the "largest and most-publicized prescription drug withdrawal in this country's history":

On the morning of September 30, 2004, the national television network morning shows reported extensively on the withdrawal of Vioxx, including NBC's The Today Show, ABC's Good Morning America, CBS's Early Show, and CNN's American Morning. National coverage continued throughout the day with reports on National Public Radio and the networks' evening news broadcasts. The next day, October 1, 2004, saw more television coverage of the withdrawal and an onslaught of front-page stories in newspapers across the country.6

Merck argued that certain plaintiffs' tort claims were barred under "any conceivably applicable statute of limitations" because "at the very latest, the various limitations periods began to run on September 30, 2004, when Vioxx was withdrawn from the market."7 Finding that this media coverage was "sufficient to put the plaintiffs on notice of a potential link between their alleged injuries and the use of Vioxx," the court entered summary judgment against the plaintiffs.8 Whether plaintiffs had "actual knowledge" of the potential link between Vioxx and their alleged injuries was immaterial to the court's legal analysis.9

3. In Re Avandia Mdl

In the Avandia multidistrict litigation, GlaxoSmithKline ("GSK") sought to "establish a 'bar date,' i.e., the date by which any plaintiffs [could] be presumed as a matter of law to have been on notice of a possible link between Avandia and their injuries, and therefore to pursue any tort claims."10 Several events occurring in 2007 had served to establish a potential link between use of Avandia and an increased risk of heart attack, beginning with a meta-analysis study which was published in the New England Journal of Medicine on May 21, 2007.11 In response to the study's publication, the American College of Cardiology, the American Diabetes Association, and the American Heart Association issued a consensus statement expressing concern and advising patients taking the drug to speak with their physicians.12 In July of 2007, the FDA convened an Advisory Committee meeting, which resulted in a 20–3 vote concluding that Avandia may increase cardiac ischemic risks.13 The FDA required GSK to revise the label for Avandia, and a new black box warning regarding heart risk was approved on August 14, 2007.14 From May through November 2007, GSK sent eight Dear Doctor letters to healthcare providers regarding studies of Avandia and cardiovascular health, as well as regulatory developments.15

On June 1, 2007, GSK also published a "Dear Avandia Patient" letter, defending the drug from "press coverage about the safety of Avandia."16 The publication of the meta- analysis study, as well as the November 2007 label change, generated "substantial interest in the media" including lead stories in the national evening news and articles in national and local newspapers.17

Based on the "cumulative effect" of the 2007 events and the "information available both to the general public and treating physicians throughout 2007," the court held that "a reasonable person who knew that he or she had suffered cardiovascular injury and had taken Avandia would have been put on notice by the end of 2007 to investigate a possible link between Avandia and the injury."18 The court held that the statutes of limitations applicable to two plaintiffs' claims began to run by December 31, 2007, but noted that "the laws of certain states may have a different view of when a claim is tolled."19

4. In Re Zyprexa Mdl

Unlike Vioxx and Avandia, the Zyprexa litigation did not involve extensive national and local media attention.20 However, the manufacturer, Eli Lilly & Company ("Lilly"), revised the Zyprexa Package Insert on September 16, 2003, to include a warning to prescribing physicians about the risk to patients of weight gain and development of diabetes.21 Lilly issued a press release the next day announcing the label change.22 In November 2003, the American Diabetes Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American College of Clinical Endocrinologists, and the North American Association for the Study of Obesity released a consensus statement finding that Zyprexa increased the risk of diabetes.23 On March 1, 2004, Lilly sent a Dear Doctor letter informing physicians of the 2003 label change.24

The court found that the March 1, 2004, Dear Doctor letter would be considered the "latest possible date on which members of the medical community knew or should have known about Zyprexa's obesity and diabetes- related risks."25 Applying the "learned intermediary" doctrine, the court imputed this knowledge to each of the individual plaintiffs, holding that March 1, 2004, was also the "latest possible date [...] from which the statute of limitations may run as to any individual plaintiff."26

The Zyprexa MDL also involved claims alleging a causal link between the drug and pancreatitis.27 On November 17, 2001, Lilly revised the "ADVERSE REACTIONS" section of the Patient Package Insert to include information regarding postmarketing reports of pancreatitis.28 The court held the November 17, 2001, label change was the "date from which the statute runs as to pancreatitis," noting that the warning had been designed to alert consumers,29 as opposed to the diabetes warning which had been "designed for prescribing doctors" and "did not mention weight gain or diabetes in the 'warning to patients' section.'"30 Notably, the only other events cited by the court as potentially putting plaintiffs on notice of their claims were advertisements by plaintiffs' firms which ran from 2003 to 2007.31 The November 17, 2001, bar date selected by the court predated these advertisements and was therefore based solely on the label change.

5. Delaware Consolidated Seroquel Litigation

In the Delaware consolidated Seroquel litigation, the Superior Court of Delaware analyzed that state's "time of discovery" exception to the running of the statute of limitations, which looks to when "someone from the scientific community found and revealed publicly a link between the physical condition and the exposure to the toxic substance."32 Three of the plaintiffs were diagnosed with diabetes in 2004 but argued that they were not on notice of their claims until 2007 when they saw television advertisements aired by plaintiffs' law firms seeking potential plaintiffs for the Seroquel litigation.33

The court found that, as early as 2003, both medical and lay sources had published information regarding the possible link between Seroquel and diabetes.34 Moreover, by January of 2004, the Seroquel label was changed to include a warning regarding the possible risk of diabetes.35

The manufacturer, AstraZeneca, alerted the medical community to the new label in a Dear Doctor letter sent in January of 200436 and again in a second Dear Doctor letter sent in April of 2004. The court held that, under the applicable Delaware law, the latest possible date on which plaintiffs were on notice of their claims was January 30, 2004, the date of the first Dear Doctor letter.37

Establishing a universal bar date

Establishing a universal bar date can potentially preclude a large number of claims with one dispositive motion. It may also prevent a mass tort from being litigated in near perpetuity. Because of these powerful qualities, counsel should consider possible bar dates early in the litigation and begin gathering facts and evidence to convince the court to adopt one of those dates. It is important to document significant media exposure, press releases, regulatory activity, medical literature, and attorney advertising. However, other events unique to the history of the drug should be considered as well, given the flexibility demonstrated by the courts. In most cases, counsel would be well advised to wait until the summary judgment stage to present the issue to the court, as all of the supporting cases have been decided on a full summary judgment record, and a loss on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion may predispose the court to disfavor the argument when it is renewed at the summary judgment stage.

Footnotes

1 Accadia v. Wyeth, In re Diet Drugs (Phentermine/Fenfluramine/ Dexfenfluramine) Prods. Liab. Litig., 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26754, *3 (E.D. Pa. June 30, 2004).

2 Id. at *11-22.

3 Id. at *14-15.

4 Id. at *15.

5 Id. at *22.

6 In re Vioxx Prods. Liab. Litig., 522 F.Supp.2d 799, 803 (E.D. La. 2007).

7 Id. at 804.

8 See Vioxx, supra, 522 F.Supp.2d at 807-811 (applying the Pennsylvania, Illinois, and Puerto Rico statutes of limitations); In re Vioxx Prods. Liab. Litig., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83709, *7-8, 13 (E.D. La. Nov. 8, 2007) (applying the Kentucky and Tennessee statutes of limitations).

9 Vioxx, supra, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83709 at *7.

10 Faheem v. GlaxoSmithKline, LLC (In re Avandia Mktg., Sales Practices & Prods. Liab. Litig.), 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111272, *4 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 7, 2012).

11 Id. at *11.

12 Id. at *12.

13 Id.

14 Id.

15 Id. at *13.

16 Id.

17 Id. at *14.

18 Id. at *15-18.

19 Id. at *19-20.

20 See e.g., Belcher v. Eli Lilly & Co. (In re Zyprexa Prods. Liab. Litig.), 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105431 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 9, 2009) aff 'd, 394 Fed. Appx. 821 (2d Cir. 2010) (unpublished).

21 Id. at *98.

22 Id. at *100.

23 Id. at *101.

24 Id. at *100.

25 Id. at *105.

26 Id. at *106-107.

27 See Ortenzio v. Eli Lilly & Co. (In re Zyprexa Prods. Liab. Litig.), 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47573, 68 (E.D.N.Y. June 1, 2009).

28 Id. at *81.

29 Id. at *81, *90.

30 See Belcher, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105431 at *98, *100; see also Cunningham v. Eli Lilly & Co. (In re Zyprexa Prods. Liab. Litig.), 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49676, 14 (E.D.N.Y. May 19, 2010).

31 Cunningham, (In re Zyprexa), 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49676 at *35.

32 Burrell v. Astrazeneca LP, C.A. No. 7C-01-412 (SER), 2010 Del. Super. LEXIS 393, *2 (Del. Super. Ct. Sept. 20, 2010).

33 Id. at *3-5; *23-24.

34 Id. at 25.

35 Id.

36 Id.

37 Id.

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
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Related Articles
 
Related Video
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