United States: Trying To Infuse® Common Sense Into Parallel Claims And Off-Label Promotion

Last Updated: May 12 2015
Article by Michael A. Walsh

Truthful Scientific Information: A Compelling Health Imperative

Why is it that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is suggesting it will conduct a meeting in the summer of 2015? Perhaps the FDA has had its fill after reaping more than $12 billion in penalties. More likely the landmark decision in US v. Caronia, 703 F.3d 149 (2d Cir. 2012) was the watershed decision that everyone, except the FDA, said it was. Moreover, pressure has been mounting as the House Commerce Committee is considering the "21st Century Cures Act" that potentially includes a provision on off-label communications; the Medical Information Working Group's (i.e. a coalition of big pharma) 2011 and 2013 petitions still lurk; and a myriad of litigation is challenging the current scheme of regulation. While it is unclear what form any new rule may take, it has been clear for more than a decade that the current regime offends the US Constitution on many fronts, foments litigation and—by hindering the flow of truthful scientific and medical information—fails to protect the public.

As the brouhaha continues, courts are contorting themselves to untangle the spaghetti bowl of cases applying federal preemption to state law parallel claims for off-label promotion. For example, in Caplinger v. Medtronic, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 6630 (10th Cir. April 21, 2015), the Tenth Circuit observed in a 2-1 decision that courts need not delve into the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) or FDA regulations to craft a cognizable claim regarding Medtronic's Infuse® off-label promotion that the plaintiff had failed to plead. While affirming the lower court's dismissal of the complaint on preemption grounds, the court wrestled with the murky morass of Supreme Court "parallel claim" preemption precedent and the question of state-tort claim survival under the primacy of the supremacy clause stating:

All the same the Lohr majority adopted a test that leaves it to lower courts to try to resolve whether a state duty is "literally different" but "narrower" (and thus permissible) or "too different" and "broader" (and thus impermissible). Lower courts have struggled ever since when it comes to trying to decide whether particular state claims do or don't "parallel" putative federal counterparts. Id. at 8

The Court went on to suggest that perhaps there is a need for a bit of Supreme Court clarity in this arena saying:

How are we supposed to apply all these competing instructions? It's "no easy task."... One can't help but wonder if perhaps some of those rules warrant revisiting and reconciliation... It's no wonder that the difficulty of crafting a complaint sufficient to satisfy all these demands has been compared to the task of navigating between Scylla and Charybdis. Id at *12-13 (citations omitted).

Further musing on the plaintiff Caplinger's frustration and offering a prayer of hope but no guidance, the court asserted:

That's not to say another plaintiff won't ever be able to succeed where Ms. Caplinger has failed. For example, we don't question the possibility that buried somewhere in the heap of federal law parallel provisions exist to save claims like Ms. Caplinger's. After all, the FDA's medical device regulations alone cover 592 pages of eight-point type and the Supreme Court has suggested that in searching for a parallel federal duty a plaintiff may scour them all as well as the statute itself. And lurking in there somewhere might be some answer to the apparent conundrum of how a plaintiff might use state law to require more label warnings that federal law seems to prohibit. But despite the challenge of Medtronic's motion to dismiss, Ms. Caplinger has never -- in all her voluminous briefs in the district court or this one -- identified any legally viable federal requirement that might parallel and thus permit her claims. Neither are the courts under an obligation to perform that work for her, searching out theories and authorities she has not presented for herself. Indeed, we are especially hesitant to try that here, where Ms. Caplinger has been ably represented by counsel and the effort to supplement their efforts would require us to venture into a field in which so many others who've come before have struggled to find their way and there exists so much risk of going astray. Id. at *18.

The Caplinger case is not notable merely because plaintiff failed to frame a cognizable cause of action. More troubling is the Court's failure to recognize the trend adopted by plaintiffs to rely on an "off-label promotion" claim as a pretext to circumvent preemption and there the Court observed:

In not a single one of its many and involved encounters with the MDA has the Supreme Court so much as hinted at this [off-label promotion] alternative path around preemption. But Ms. Caplinger says its past obscurity shouldn't stop us from recognizing it now. Id. at *23

Off-Label Versus New Drug

The Court got a bit undone sifting through the FDCA and FDA's regulations and "guidance." It is undoubtedly true that the Supreme Court has yet to recognize if, how, when, why and under what precise analysis the Court will recognize a tort claim for conduct deemed "promotion" of an unapproved new drug or device .

The Tenth Circuit's reasoning becomes murky when it focuses on Congress' limiting the FDA's power to restrict physicians from "using" a product in a manner that is not in the approved product labeling. 21 USC §396. Here, the Court observed that Congress shifted the risk to patients and physicians. What the Court ignored and Plaintiff failed to raise, is that the FDCA goes on to state:

This section shall not limit any existing authority of the Secretary to establish and enforce restrictions on the sale or distribution, or in the labeling, of a device that are part of a determination of substantial equivalence, established as a condition of approval, or promulgated through regulations....

Further, this section shall not change any existing prohibition on the promotion of unapproved uses of legally marketed devices." Id.

Who Is Doing What?

Conflating a physician's off-label use in the practice of medicine and a manufacturer's marketing of an unapproved device, the Court observed:

It's easy to imagine, too, why Congress adopted a preemption provision [21 USC §360k(a)] that doesn't distinguish between on-and off-label uses. Any additional state duties on top of those imposed by federal law, even if nominally limited to off-label uses, might check innovation, postpone access to life-saving devices, and impose barriers to entry without sufficient offsetting safety gains. Caplinger at *29-30.

The Court is correct suggesting any rule should not stifle innovation or limit life-saving therapy, but the Court was correct perhaps for the wrong reason. The preemption provided under §360k does not reference off-label to protect innovation but exists because clearance is premised solely on approved uses. On this point, the dissenting opinion in Caplinger would have allowed the claims to proceed.

The path forward is less clear than the Tenth Circuit supposed. The FDA views off-label promotional conduct as evidence of intent to market an unapproved new device. While §396 prohibits FDA from exerting authority over physicians "using" a device off label, the prohibition does not expressly extend to "promotion" by manufacturers. What the Court and the plaintiff in Caplinger did not recognize is that "use" falls under the umbrella of medical judgment, whereas promotion of new device falls under the realm of FDA clearance or approval.

What does this mean in the context of preemption? When marketing and promotional conduct are not tethered to FDA authorized procedures for the dissemination of scientific or medical information on new uses, manufacturers risk FDA enforcement. In addition, plaintiffs may have viable tort claims against manufacturers marketing a device without FDA clearance on the grounds that the conduct violates both the FDCA and relevant state law.

The plaintiff's inability to plead a coherent parallel claim for promoting a new use saved the defendant in Caplinger. The FDCA, as well as the Supreme Court opinions allowing a state-law tort claim where they "parallel" the FDCA remain imprecise. Until and unless the Supreme Court or Congress comprehensively review the underlying policy considerations surrounding off-label use for approved products, the "conundrum" noted by the Tenth Circuit in Caplinger will continue.

A health and public policy imperative that physicians should have more information concerning products, particularly those they use for indications that are not FDA approved or cleared underlies this purported tort of off-label promotion. While preemption has provided ample fodder for constitutional wrangling over permissible and impermissible tort claims, a greater hurdle in the saga of preemption lies ahead. Whether the emerging Supreme Court precedent on deference, due process and the First Amendment will provide the remedy for industry or create a far greater dilemma is a pressing question.


The manufacturer in Caplinger obtained a good result, but the Tenth Circuit's 2-1 opinion does not put the preemption issue to rest, but instead portends more litigation. The controversy over off-label uses for approved products will continue until Congress mandates change or the FDA revises its approach. In the interim, manufacturers should tether the conduct of their marketers to recognized avenues of dissemination of medical and scientific information. Marketers' who deviate from those paths will create an Achilles' heel manufacturers will be forced to defend.

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.

Michael A. Walsh
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
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
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
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.


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.


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