United States: FDA-Approved Labeling ≠ Medical Standard Of Care

Last Updated: February 23 2017
Article by James Beck

We've been defending the ability of physicians to engage in off-label use ever since the Bone Screw litigation of the 1990s. Buckman Co. v. Plaintiffs Legal Committee, where the United States Supreme Court affirmed that "off-label use is generally accepted" and that under the law, "[p]hysicians may prescribe drugs and devices for off-label uses," 531 U.S. 341, 351 & n.5 (2001), was one of our Bone Screw cases. Thus, we follow medical malpractice decisions, like Doctors Co. v. Plummer, ___ So.3d___, 2017 WL 242577 (Fla. App. Jan. 20, 2017), which we discussed recently, for what they have to say about off-label use. In malpractice cases, the dark side often attempts to equate "intended uses" listed in FDA-approved drug/device labeling with the medical standard of care. As we mentioned in that post, arguments that FDA-approved product labeling equals the medical standard of care are really attempts to turn off-label use itself into a tort.

The Doctors Co. decision prompted us to look back over our 9+ years of blogging output for where we addressed this issue previously. Surprisingly, there was only one, a 2007 Bexis piece that (even more surprisingly) didn't cite any caselaw. We also found a 2009 law review article by our erstwhile co-founder, Mark Herrmann, which might have been prompted by the earlier blogpost. But nothing was on the blog itself that could qualify as useful research.

We rectify that today.

As we suspected, the modern rule severely limit the use of FDA-approved labeling as evidence of any medical standard of care in medmal cases. The New Jersey Supreme Court, in Morlino v. Medical Center, 706 A.2d 721 (N.J. 1998), rejected an argument that, because the defendant physician had not disclosed a pregnancy-related risk contained in the package insert (as collected in the Physician's Desk Reference ("PDR"), that proved malpractice.

[D]rug manufacturers do not design package inserts and PDR entries to establish a standard of medical care. Manufacturers write drug package inserts and PDR warnings for many reasons including compliance with FDA requirements, advertisement, the provision of useful information to physicians, and an attempt to limit the manufacturer's liability. . . . Those considerations highlight the reasons expert testimony must accompany the introduction of PDR warnings to establish the applicable standard of care in prescribing a drug.

Id. at 729. In Dunn v. Yager, 58 So.3d 1171, 1203 (Miss. 2011), the court affirmed exclusion of an FDA black box warning in a malpractice case, where the warning had not been present at the time of the medical treatment in question.

Another attempt to measure the medical standard of care by drug labeling failed in McCorkle v. Gravois, 152 So.3d 944 (La. App. 2014). Agreeing with Morlino, the McCorkle court:

conclude[d] that in the absence of a specific contraindication or warning in the package insert and PDR, the plaintiffs could not satisfy their burden of establishing the applicable standard of care, nor establish a prima facie case of negligence, by relying upon the package insert and PDR alone, but instead, needed expert testimony.

Id. at 956. Similarly, the court in Chandler v. Simpson, 2000 WL 426441, at *8 (Wash. App. April 18, 2000), refused to allow a warning from a package insert to establish "materiality" for purposes of informed consent. Other cases rejecting evidentiary use of FDA-approved drug/device labeling in medical malpractice cases are: Anderson v. Eli Lilly & Co., 2015 WL 8773795, at *3 (Ohio App. Dec. 15, 2015) (expert testimony required; "that a physician prescribed a medication which arguably was contraindicated . . . does not in and of itself make the treating physician guilty of professional negligence"); Clarke v. Mikhail, 779 S.E.2d 150, 161 (N.C. App. 2015) (a "manufacturer's recommended titration schedule is a recommendation only, from which medical providers can and do deviate"); Arnold v. Lee, 2006 WL 1410161, at *3 (Iowa App. May 24, 2006) (refusing to admit package insert as evidence of malpractice "[i]n an age where drugs are frequently used for purposes not approved by the FDA") (in table at 720 N.W.2d 194); cf. Schultz v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, L.P., 2006 WL 3797932, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 22, 2006) ("a mere allegation of 'off-label' use with nothing more would not be sufficient to state a claim for professional negligence").

Most jurisdictions will admit package inserts in malpractice cases, but not as conclusive evidence of a violation of the standard of care, and usually only in conjunction with expert testimony. "[T]he majority view [is] that while the information about the drug in the package insert and the PDR is relevant and useful information regarding the prescribing physician's standard of care, it is not the sole determinant of the standard of care." Hyman & Armstrong, P.S.C. v. Gunderson, 279 S.W.3d 93, 114 (Ky. 2008). In Spensieri v. Lasky, 723 N.E.2d 544 (N.Y. 1999), the New York Court of Appeals, declared that "[t]he purposes behind [drug labeling] render its content ill-suited to serve as prima facie evidence of a standard of care," and consequently "reject[ed] the contention that the PDR constitutes prima facie evidence of a standard of care." "[A]dmission of the PDR alone in place of expert testimony would result in a standard of care established by drug manufacturers instead of the medical profession." Id. at 548.

In Richardson v. Miller, 44 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. App. 2000), the court distilled (mostly from Spensieri) four reasons for restricting the use of manufacturer/FDA labeling in medical malpractice cases relating to the standard of care:

  • First, permitting the labeling or the PDR reference alone to establish a physician's standard of care would be inconsistent with [state statutory law] because it would permit the drug manufacturer, rather than the medical profession, to establish the standard of care.
  • Second, the FDA-required labeling and parallel PDR reference may not be easily understood by the jury without expert assistance because these materials are written for the medical profession, not the general public.
  • Third, the drug manufacturer and the FDA do not intend to establish the standard of care when they prepare a drug's labeling or PDR reference. These materials are intended to comply with the FDA's regulations, to provide advertising and promotional material, and to limit the manufacturer's liability.
  • Finally, the labeling and PDR reference cannot be cross-examined.

Id. at 16-17 (citations omitted).

Other cases allowing use of manufacturer labeling in a role subsidiary to expert testimony in medical malpractice/informed consent litigation against physicians include: Ngo v. Queen's Medical Center, 358 P.3d 26, 41 (Haw. 2015) ("information contained in a manufacturer's insert cannot, on its own, satisfy a plaintiff's burden of production in an informed consent case, [but] can constitute evidence that the jury or fact finder may consider along with the requisite expert testimony"); Bissett v. Renna, 710 A.2d 404, 407 (N.H. 1998) ("the PDR, by itself, is insufficient to establish the standard of care required of the defendant"); Craft v. Peebles, 893 P.2d 138 (Haw. 1995) ("manufacturer's package inserts do not, by themselves, set the standard of care which is applicable to a physician on the issue of informed consent"); Bowman v. Songer, 820 P.2d 1110, 1114 (Colo. 1991) ("manufacturer's instructions . . . may be admissible evidence on the standard of care, when supported by expert testimony"); Ramon v. Farr, 770 P.2d 131, 135-36 (Utah 1989) ("the better rule is that manufacturers' inserts and parallel P.D.R. entries do not by themselves set the standard of care, even as a prima facie matter" but are "some evidence that the finder of fact may consider along with expert testimony on the standard of care"); Garvey v. O'Donoghue, 530 A.2d 1141, 1146 (D.C. 1987) ("[w]hen the package insert or the PDR is offered in conjunction with expert testimony . . . that combination may be sufficient to establish the standard of care"); Thompson v. Carter, 518 So.2d 609, 613 (Miss. 1987) ("the package insert in the instant case should not be taken as conclusive evidence of the physician's standard of care, nor should a departure from the directions contained in the package insert be considered to establish a prima facie case of negligence"; but is admissible as proof "of the proper method of use"); Nolan v. Dillon, 276 A.2d 36, 49 (Md. 1971) ("[t]he package insert . . . does not standing alone establish a standard of care, but rather, prima facie proof of proper use"); Crouch v. Most, 432 P.2d 250, 252 (N.M. 1967) ("directions in the brochure are, at best, only proof of a proper method of use"); Doctors Co., ___ So.3d at ___, 2017 WL 242577, at *6 ("a prescription drug package insert may have some significance in identifying a doctor's standard of care" but "cannot be used as 'stand-alone proof'"); Grayson v. State, 838 P.2d 546, 548-49 (Okla. App. 1992) ("declin[ing] to hold that departure from the drug manufacturer's recommendations found on the package insert is prima facie evidence of negligence"; they may only "be considered along with all other evidence," and "do[] not relieve the plaintiff of the burden of proving, through expert testimony, the standard of medical care") (emphasis original); Gaston v. Hunter, 588 P.2d 326, 345 n.18 (Ariz. App. 1978) ("manufacturer's instructions are at least some evidence of the appropriate standard of care in the administration of a drug"); Rodriguez v. Jackson, 574 P.2d 481, 486 (Ariz. App. 1977) ("the package insert is admissible into evidence, [but] does not establish conclusive evidence of the standard or accepted practice in the use of the drug by physicians and surgeons"); Salgo v. Leland Stanford, Jr. University Board of Trustees, 317 P.2d 170, 180 (Cal. App. 1957) (package inserts "while admissible, . . . cannot establish as a matter of law the standard of care required of a physician in the use of the drug"); Bay v. Abel, 2004 WL 5453008 (Okla. Dist. April 21, 2004) ("non-approval by the FDA with regard to the [device] and technique utilized by [the physician] does not, per se, demonstrate or prove professional malpractice").

Some courts, in mostly older decisions, allow package inserts, without more, to stand as "prima facie" evidence of the medical standard of care. Mueller v. Mueller, 221 N.W.2d 39, 42-43 (S.D. 1974); Ohligschlager v. Proctor Community Hospital, 303 N.E.2d 392, 386 (Ill. 1973); Mulder v. Parke Davis & Co., 181 N.W.2d 882, 887 (Minn. 1970); Julien v. Barker, 272 P.2d 718, 724 (Idaho 1954); Haught v. Maceluch, 681 F.2d 291, 303 n.12 (5th Cir. 1982) (applying Texas law). Interestingly, this approach tended to exculpate manufacturers from liability for off-label use, while imposing such liability on physicians:

The drug manufacturers are being held accountable in courts of law for injuries caused by these drugs only when these recommendations are followed. The busy doctor has no alternative but to prescribe these drugs according to the recommendations of the drug manufacturers.

Mueller, 221 N.W.2d at 42-43 (emphasis added).

Finally, that a prescription medical product has been prescribed off-label has been held not to undermine a statutory presumption that the product's FDA approved labeling was adequate:

The decision of [plaintiff's] physicians to prescribe [the drug] off-label, and the fact that the FDA had not yet approved [it] for the particular indication for which it was prescribed to [plaintiff], does not rebut the statutory presumption of adequacy to which the [drug's] labeling is entitled. . . . The FDA's decision not to include a risk . . . warning on the [drug's] label was deliberate and informed. Plaintiffs cannot use the fact that [the drug] was prescribed off-label to rebut the statutory presumption of adequacy.

Bailey v. Wyeth, Inc., 37 A.3d 549, 576 (N.J. Super. Law. Div. 2008) (product liability action; "[f]ollowing the accepted medical standard of care, physicians frequently prescribe drugs for off-label or unapproved uses"), aff'd, 28 A.3d 1245 (N.J. Super. App. Div. 2011). Accord Seavey v. Globus Medical, Inc., 2014 WL 1876957, at *7-8 (D.N.J. March 11, 2014) (applying same statutory presumption as Bailey to off-label use of §510k medical device).

This article is presented for informational purposes only and is not intended to constitute legal advice.

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
James Beck
 
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