Photo of Eric Alexander

At times, we have given a glimpse into the sausage making that goes into our production of posts on recent interesting cases and developments.  Part of the process involves standing searches for “published” (including by the electronic services) decisions from trial courts and appellate courts.  Sometimes, the trial court decisions are unpublished but interesting, and the appellate decisions are published but not too interesting.  When we saw the Sixth Circuit decision in Agee v. Alphatec Spine, Inc., — Fed. Appx. –, 2018 WL 1020078 (6th Cir. Feb. 22, 2018), on one of our standing searches, it was not interesting enough to merit a post.  A short per curiam decision noted how awful plaintiffs’ complaint was and how they had waived their position on preemption by mixing up express preemption with the implied preemption raised by the defendant’s motion to dismiss.  We were feeling sleuthy, however, so we tracked down the district court’s decision from a year ago.  It has a nice discussion of Buckman, and will now be published, so we are going to discuss it.

Agee v. Alphatec Spine, Inc., No. 1:15-cv-750, 2017 WL 5706002 (S.D. Ohio. Mar. 27, 2017), reads like the sort of case brought when the plaintiffs are looking for someone on whom to pin liability in the absence of a claim against the most logical defendant.  The plaintiffs claimed that a surgeon used defendant’s product in connect with unnecessary spinal surgeries without proper informed consent, but the surgeon fled the country with criminal charges pending.  So, the plaintiffs asserted various product liability claims against the manufacturers of the product, PureGen.  Usually, we would state clearly what type of product is at issue, but neither decision really says, other than to say the defendants are medical device companies and the product was used to stimulate bone growth.  We did a little looking and saw that PureGen is an “osteoprogenitor cell allograft” derived from donated adult stem cells.  We also saw that there was some history with FDA over whether this was a biologic, requiring approval of a Biologics License Application, or a device that might go through the 510(k) pathway.  In any event, plaintiffs seemed to claim defendants should be liable for their injuries—it was unclear that there were any physical injuries—solely because PureGen “had never been approved by FDA for use in the spine.”  Defendants moved to dismiss.

We will skip over the TwIqbal part of this—although there are nice statements and the interesting fact that some of the plaintiffs were suing in the same court with contrary allegations about another product—and the some of the details of Ohio law to get to the Buckman part.  After reiterating the Buckman standard and the cases explaining that a court is to look at the asserted claims to see if a violation of the FDCA is a critical element, the court did just that, providing something of a roadmap on what is preempted under Buckman.  The claim for defective manufacturing alleged that the failure to obtain FDA approval made the product produce injury.  (That is not close to a manufacturing defect claim under Ohio law, which has codified the claim under ORC 2307.74.)  The design defect claim was identical (and similarly off-target from ORC 2307.75).  The warning defect claim was also predicated on lack of approval of the product, but not even that the warning misrepresented the regulatory status.  The misrepresentation claim was predicated on a representation to plaintiffs and their doctors that the product was approved or concealing from them that it was not.  A similar claim for nonconformance with representation (under ORC 2307.77) was slightly less clear, in that it referenced “representations made by defendants concerning the product and/or with applicable federal requirements.”

The court’s analysis of these claims was clear and quotable:

Each of the above-quoted claims is clearly dependent upon the FDCA to a degree that the claims would not exist but for the statute. It may or may not be the case that the promotion and distribution of PureGen for use in the surgeries references in the complaint was in violation of the FDCA and relevant FDA regulations.  However, if that is the case, it is the sole responsibility and privilege of the federal government, and not private plaintiffs, to bring a suit to enforce those violations.

Well-reasoned. And dispositive.  And now affirmed on appeal.

We have written extensively on the travesty of the Neurontin trilogy (like here and here) and noted how the plaintiffs’ efforts to fit cases based on alleged off-label promotion of the prescription SSRIs Celexa and Lexapro into the same rubric have not been as successful. Today’s case addresses what we understand to be some of the last few cases in the MDL.   In re Celexa & Lexapro Mktg. & Sales Practs. Litig., MDL No. 09-02067-NMG, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13579 (D. Mass. Jan. 26, 2018).  This summary judgment decision addresses three cases, one by a third party payor on behalf of a purported class and two by parents of former pediatric users.  As always, we reserve the right to focus on the parts we want and to make gratuitous statements about how these cases exemplify much of what is wrong with civil RICO and consumer fraud cases over prescription drugs.

A little background on the litigation and these cases should help.  The allegations centered on the claim that the manufacturer of these drugs had caused economic injury to the plaintiffs by promoting the use of the drugs for pediatric patients when they were only approved for adult use.  To dispose of the plaintiffs’ cases, the court did not have to resolve whether the manufacturer engaged in such promotion, let alone whether any promotion was untruthful—which we think it would need to be to impose liability consistent with the First Amendment.  Celexa was approved to treat depression in adults in 1998 and an application to treat depression in adolescents was filed in 2002.  FDA denied that application based on a lack of efficacy in one of the two clinical studies.  Lexapro was approved to treat depression in adults in 2002 and an application to treat depression in adolescents was filed in 2008 and approved a year later.  The Celexa label always stated that “safety and effectiveness in pediatric patients have not been established” and, starting in 2005, described the results of certain pediatric trials.  The Lexapro label had similar language until the pediatric indication was added.  The first individual plaintiff sued over the prescription, purchase, and intermittent use of Celexa by a thirteen year old depressed patient in 2002-2003.  The second individual plaintiff sued over the prescription, purchase, and use of Celexa and later Lexapro by an eight to fifteen year old autistic patient from 2003 to 2010.  The TPP plaintiff sued over prescriptions paid for a relatively small number of Celexa prescriptions for pediatric beneficiaries from 1999 to 2004 and for a somewhat larger number of Lexapro prescriptions for pediatric beneficiaries between 2012 and 2015, but also claimed to represent a nationwide class of payors.  The plaintiffs asserted a mix of federal civil RICO and state consumer fraud claims and, skipping some procedural history, the court entertained summary judgment motions.

The consideration of the RICO requirements of injury and causation resolved all issues. For those of you who know RICO or have just followed along with some of our posts, RICO requires an injury to “business or property” as a matter of standing.  Relying on the Neurontin cases, these plaintiffs claimed that they had been injured because they paid for drugs that were not effective for the indications for which they were prescribed.  They claimed, however, that any payment for an off-label prescription was an injury because they contended that FDA had somehow been defrauded in connection with the applications for pediatric indications.  2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13579, *19.  If you are following along, then you might wonder how this theory could apply to Celexa prescriptions or the earlier prescriptions of either drug.  First things first, though, as the Celexa court had to unpack the Neurontin rulings to see if they supported plaintiffs’ relaxed standard.  They did not, so plaintiffs had to prove lack of efficacy.  The TPP and second plaintiff could not:  “[T]he FDA in this case approved the drug for use in adolescents.  There is no conclusive or even strongly suggestive evidence of inefficacy in this case and plaintiff have presented no evidence as to the inefficacy for [the second plaintiff] or for any of [the TPP’s] plan members.” Id. at *22.  As one might expect with prescriptions over the eight years, the second individual plaintiff’s prescribing physician testified that the drugs had been effective with the patient’s autism.  The TPP’s evidence resembled what we have seen in other cases—no proof from physicians for the plan beneficiaries and the plan still pays for pediatric prescriptions for both drugs, contrary to the allegations in the case.

Plaintiffs’ attempted end run was that they had experts who would say FDA was somehow defrauded about efficacy for pediatric use—presumably just for Lexapro, as FDA rejected the only application for a pediatric indication for Celexa, and not for autism, as that was not an indication for either drug.  As the court noted, and we will let the Neurontin characterizations lie, plaintiffs’ “fraud theory is a tenuous attempt to shoehorn the facts of this case into the facts of Neurontin, where there were no positive, or even equivocal, clinical trials for the indications at issue.” Id. at *25.  Here, FDA “determined that two clinical studies were positive” and “FDA is the exclusive judge of safety and efficacy and a court should not question that judgment unless new information not considered by the FDA develops.” Id. (internal quotes and citation omitted).  Keep in mind that RICO is federal, so there is no preemption.  Not too shabby.  And summary judgment for the manufacturer on two of the plaintiffs.

On the remaining plaintiff, the first individual, the manufacturer challenged causation.  In part because we think the analysis was somewhat confused, we will skip to what mattered and probably applies to other plaintiffs with similar claims.  The prescribing physician’s testimony did not support reliance on a sales representative’s discussion of Celexa at all. Id. at *30.  While he did acknowledge a possibility of some unrecalled exposure to off-label promotion, this is not enough to avoid summary judgment on an issue for which the plaintiff bears the burden of proof.  “A mere possibility that the doctor could have, at some point, encountered off-label promotion, although he has no memory of it, does not rise to the level of a disputed material fact.” Id. at **30-31.  That sounds like what courts are supposed to say when evaluating a summary judgment motion on proximate cause for failure to warn with a prescription medical product.  The court here called this “but-for causation,” but we will not quibble. Summary judgment was awarded to the manufacturer on the last plaintiff’s RICO claim and the analysis on RICO determined the result of the various consumer fraud claims.  Like we said up front, this was all without reaching whether the manufacturer did anything wrong with its promotion.


Having already issued our posts on the best and worst cases of 2017, we will resist the temptation to comment on the year as a whole, particularly on the powder keg that is politics.  We will note, however, two non-legal phenomena that we do not like.  First, our collective attention span has gotten shorter, with the “news,” scandal, or development of the minute being partially digested before it is forgotten.  When faced with a longer bit of print, it seems we do not get much past the headline or opening sentence—for those of us who read—before we start itching for something more pithy and less mentally taxing.  That headlines and opening sentences might mislead us is increasingly less of a concern than it should be.  Second, public discourse pretty much stinks, even if you ignore the constant interruptions of television pundits or the maniacal rants of radio monologists.  The (anonymous) comments on seemingly benign stories on sports or science often devolve into personal attacks between the commenters and grammatically challenged pronouncements of intellectual or moral superiority.  Both of these phenomena make us wish for the days when people thought more and argued less, or at least with less venom.  We recall when the first comment on a news item would declare “First!” instead of epithets for the author and/or subject.

Today’s post is best viewed with some historical perspective, not just as short and straightforward decision of a state court, we tapped just yesterday as #9 on the best list. State ex rel. Bayer Corp. v. Moriarty, ___ S.W.3d ___, 2017 Mo. LEXIS 582 (Mo. Dec. 19, 2017), rules on the appeal of a trial court’s denial of a motion to dismiss the claims of non-resident plaintiffs on lack of personal jurisdiction.  The case was brought in Missouri state court against the non-Missouri manufacturer of a contraceptive device, with 85 of 92 plaintiffs not being from Missouri either. Given that our readers do pay attention and can remember thing they have read before, we will not elaborate on how typical of litigation tourism this case looked.  The timing should also ring some bells.  The motion to dismiss was denied in December 2016—well after Bauman and many other strong general and specific personal jurisdiction decisions—and the Missouri Supreme Court allowed an interlocutory appeal in July 2017—after the Supreme Court decision in BNSF but before the Supreme Court decision in BMS (#1 on the best list) and some good Missouri decisions on personal jurisdiction.  The interlocutory appeal also means that the defendant did not have to wait for an adverse trial result involving a non-Missouri resident—perhaps after more burdensome discovery than might have been permitted elsewhere—to have another court consider how 92% of the plaintiffs did not belong in Missouri.

The first argument that the non-resident plaintiffs raised on appeal was that the defendant’s on-going business in Missouri was sufficient to bestow general jurisdiction under pre-Bauman standards.  Even if this were a good argument at the time of the trial court decision, BNSF made clear that “in-state business, [as] clarified in Daimler and Goodyear, does not suffice to permit the assertion of general jurisdiction over claims like [the nonresident plaintiffs’] that are unrelated to any activity occurring in [the forum state].”  2017 Mo. LEXIS 582, *9.  Accordingly, without any need for debate, allegations that the defendant did substantial business in Missouri were not enough to bestow general jurisdiction.  Plaintiff’s next argument—which had won below—also turned on a subsequent decision.  In February 2017, the Missouri Supreme Court held in State ex rel. Norfolk S. Ry. Co. v. Dolan, 512 S.W.3d 41, 52-53 (Mo. 2017), “registering to do business in Missouri and appointing registered agents here” does not amount to consent by a company to “personal jurisdiction in this state even over unrelated claims.”  2017 Mo. LEXIS 582, *11.  (We covered the Norfolk decision in our post surveying jurisdiction by consent, which is here in case you did not memorize it.)  Again, the recent precedent determined the result—no general personal jurisdiction by consent.

After BMS, BNSF, and Norfolk, specific jurisdiction did not require much argument.  Plaintiffs’ argument below that they could piggyback on the jurisdiction over the in-state plaintiffs’ claims was rejected.  In particular, BMS required “a connection between the forum and the specific claims at issue,” not claims some other plaintiffs might assert. Id. at *14.  “Due process requires there be an affiliation between the forum and the underlying controversy.  In the original petition, nonresident Plaintiffs failed to plead facts showing their claims arose out of or relate to Missouri activities of Bayer or their injuries occurred here.” Id. This would be the end of things as to the non-Missouri plaintiffs—they basically conceded such on appeal—except that the procedural posture required that the trial court gets to decide if plaintiffs can plead personal jurisdiction in an amended complaint or pursue jurisdictional discovery.  Rather than reveal our personal preferences or offer characterizations of the practices pursued in cases like this, we end this last post of 2017 with the following weighty comment:  “Last!”

A (relatively) long time ago in a state not so far away, the Michigan Legislature enacted the Michigan Product Liability Act.  It contained a provision providing the manufacturers of FDA-approved drugs with immunity from product liability absent the application of two narrow exceptions.  A challenge to the constitutionality of the provision soon followed and the Michigan Supreme Court, in Taylor v. Smithkline Beecham Corp., 658 N.W.2d 127 (Mich. 2003), basically said the legislature can enact a law like that and the immunity on drug manufacturers was as broad as it seemed.  (This guest post provides a nice history.)  Other decisions followed, like Garcia v. Wyeth-Ayerst Labs., 385 F.3d 961 (6th Cir. 2004), and Desiano v. Warner-Lambert & Co., 467 F.3d 85, 98 (2d Cir. 2006), aff’d by equally divided court, 552 U.S. 440 (2008), coming down on opposite sides of the issue of whether the first exception—the defendant “before the event that allegedly caused the injury . . . intentionally withholds from or misrepresents to [FDA] information concerning the drug that is required to be submitted” under the FDCA that would have prevented original or continued approval—runs into Buckman preemption.  What also followed was that Michiganders who wanted to sue over alleged drug started to go elsewhere.  (Not to galaxies several parsecs—a unit of distance, not time—away, but just to other states.)  They did so because they hoped that the immunity in § 600.2946(5) would not follow them.

We have called this phenomenon the Michigan diaspora, and, while the dispersal of the Michigan litigation tourists is merely temporary, their cases do keep popping up in some likely spots.  Just last month, we discussed how West Virginia state courts have applied Michigan law to the claims of Michiganders hoping to find more plaintiff-friendly law.  We have also discussed how the claims of Michiganians claiming gynecomastia from Risperdal have fared in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, a jurisdiction that has seen plenty of action in that particular litigation.  We praised the court’s application of the Michigan statute to bar the claims.  The plaintiffs in that case appealed to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, which has reversed more than a few defense rulings we have liked.  Instead In re Risperdal Litig., __ A.3d __, 2017 WL 5712521 (Pa. Super. Nov. 28, 2017), respected the force of the Michigan Legislature’s clear enactment and affirmed.

On appeal, the plaintiffs agreed that Michigan law applied, but argued that the statute provided no protection where the use was off-label.  When the plaintiffs (actually all but one of them) were prescribed the drug it had been approved but did not yet have an indication for use in juveniles, which they were at the time.  The statute, however, hinged on whether “the drug was approved for safety and efficacy,” not whether the particular indication had been approved.  Federal courts had followed “the plain language of the statute” and found off-label use was irrelevant to the application of immunity as long as the drug was approved.  2017 WL 5712521, **5-6.  “Thus, we conclude that as long s a drug has received approval, and its label is compliant with FDA regulations, the MPLA applies to bar any product liability claim, despite the drug’s indicated uses.” Id. at *6.

Next, plaintiffs argued that they had enough evidence to raise a genuine issue as to the statutory exception based on a fraud on the FDA.  Defendants claimed that any attempt to meet the exception would be preempted because the FDA had never found such a fraud.  The Superior Court did not take the opportunity to add to either side of the preemption ledger because plaintiffs did not have the evidence they needed anyway. Id. at *7.  The statute did not just require any fraud on FDA, but a withholding of information such that its proper submission would have meant “the drug would not have been approved” or FDA “would have withdrawn approval for the drug.”  Plaintiffs argued that their evidence of purported fraud was relevant to the approval of the additional indication for juvenile use, but they never contended that the drug would not have been approved or would have been withdrawn.  “[T]he proof of fraud a plaintiff is required to present in order to receive the benefit of the fraud exception must relate to the initial FDA approval.” Id. at *8.  Given that FDA had denied a citizen’s petition in 2014 that requested the drug be withdrawn, it was clear that any purported fraud related to the application to add the juvenile use indication almost a decade earlier was insufficient to trigger the exception. Id. We all know Yoda famously said “Do or do not.  There is no try.”  Here, plaintiffs tried and tried again, but they did not get around the statutory immunity despite their sojourn to Pennsylvania.


We can be inundated with news.  Old news.  New news.  Fake news.  Breaking news.  News that makes you want to break something.  News that makes you want to go back to bed.  In trying to be discerning consumers of the news, it is useful to do not just a reality check but a date check.  Stories on a social media stream come with a presumption of newness, but the date of the release of the story—once you find it—may make you stop reading because it is not news any more.  You may even have read the old news when it was new and just got suckered back by the misimpression of novelty.  A story about a new species of dinosaur, or even beetle, being discovered?  We are clicking.  Einstein’s prediction of gravitational waves verified?  Click—wait, we saw that way back in early 2016, and a Nobel Prize was awarded for that last month.

Generic drug preemption may not be as clickworthy as a “new” ankylosaur, but these decisions do still catch our attention.  After Mensing, Bartlett and scores of published decisions preempting the vast majority of conceivable claims—or holding that state law does not recognize the claim the plaintiff would need to sidestep preemption—you might think that plaintiffs would stop pursuing these claims.  Well, the nonsense that is innovator liability has not provided a viable alternative—although the plaintiffs keep trying (like here and here)—and courts have not yet resorted to Rule 11 for pursuing obviously preempted claims, so the plaintiffs keep trying.  When Kious v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., No. 16-990-R, 2016 WL 9559038 (W.D. Okla. Dec. 8, 2016), popped up in our searches, we thought it might be new and newsworthy.  It really was old news made to seem new because it had taken eleven months to get on Westlaw.  The generic manufacturer defendant secured dismissal of the claims against it on preemption, but was there anything new, different or interesting about it?  We think it is pretty much old hat, but that may be the point.

Kious involves a plaintiff who claims to have developed Stevens-Johnson Syndrome as the result of the use of a generic antibiotic, the label for which apparently matched that of the reference drug.  The plaintiff sued the generic manufacturer, asserting standard state law claims, and a motion to dismiss the amended complaint followed.  (He also sued the branded manufacturer, but that is not discussed in the opinion.)  The court walked through each asserted claim, starting with design defect.  Preemption of such claims is not really a question post-Bartlett, but the Tenth Circuit’s decision in Schrock, discussed here, left no doubt that strict liability and negligence design claims fail.  Id. at *2.  Next up was the claim for manufacturing defect, which was really just a re-packaged claim for design defect.  Plaintiff claimed “that every dose of azithromycin was defective because of its design and/or lack of adequate warnings,” so he did not plead a manufacturing defect claim under Oklahoma law (and the design claim under a different label was still preempted). Id.

Next up were the warnings claims.  Plaintiff did not allege a failure to update the generic label to mirror the reference drug’s label, so Mensing’s application should have been straightforward.  Not so, claimed the plaintiff, because Mensing involved prescriptions written before the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007, which established a procedure under which FDA could ask for a new label from a generic manufacturer if the reference drug was no marketed and there is new safety information.  Even this argument, however, was not new, as courts like the Seventh Circuit had already rejected it.  The Wagner decision (a lofty fifth place on last’s year’s best list) made clear that the FDAAA did not remove the prohibition against a generic drug manufacturer changing its label unilaterally.  2016 WL 9559038, *4. Kious went a step further—and we think this was actually novel—and noted that the FDA’s proposed rule from 2013 to allow generic manufacturers to change their labels unilaterally in some situations supports preemption.  “The proposed rule would be unnecessary if, as Plaintiff urges, the 2007 Amendments permitted unilateral labeling changes by generic manufacturer.” Id. No news is good news, at least here, so warnings claims are still preempted.

The remaining claims were also dismissed.  Express warranty claims are really preempted warnings claims and implied warranty claims were really preempted design claims or preempted warnings claims, depending on how construed.  Again, the Schrock decision, also under Oklahoma law, determined the result. Id. at *5.  For the claims of fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and negligent concealment, the court looked to the Eleventh Circuit’s decision in Guarino for clear authority that these were simply another version of preempted warnings claims. Id. at **5-6.  That was it for every claim plaintiff offered and, plaintiff did not get to amend again.  Judgment for the defendant after only two strikes.  Could it be that sanctions for asserting frivolous claims are next in such suits?  That would be news, no matter when it happens.



Defense hacks. Homers. Biased. These are just a few of the labels we have applied to the authors of this Blog. While we recognize our leanings and strive to offer something more than just cheering a decision for the defense and jeering a decision for the plaintiff, we do see some cases as having an obvious right result, no matter how long it takes to get there. However, just because a case is from a “bad” jurisdiction does not mean that all the decisions will be bad. In Johnson & Johnson v. Fortenberry, No. 2015-CA-01369-SCT, 2017 Miss. LEXIS 421 (Miss. Oct. 19, 2017), the geriatric plaintiff was prescribed defendant’s antipsychotic medication for about two years before developing a mild oral tardive dyskinesia (something that had appeared with the second medication plaintiff had been on). This was the third medication that plaintiff took for her severe psychosis and it apparently worked well for her. Her prescribing physician was well aware of the risk of tardive dyskinesia with every antipsychotic at the time, considering that the medication had a lower risk of tardive dyskinesia and other extrapyramidal symptoms according to both the medical literature and defendant’s marketing materials. After pending for twelve years, the case went to trial in a notorious plaintiff-friendly jurisdiction before a similarly known judge. Plaintiff proceeded at trial on failure to warn and negligent misrepresentation theories and won a sizable compensatory verdict, although punitive damages did not go to the jury. An appeal and cross-appeal followed.

As we often do, we will focus on the parts of the decision that seem more relevant to us. First, the warnings claim. You may have already guessed that we think this should have been a slam dunk for the defense. You would be right. In addition to what we noted above about the prescriber’s knowledge and plaintiff’s medical course, the prescriber testified that specifically warned plaintiff and her daughter-caregiver (who later pursued the suit for plaintiff’s estate) of the risk of tardive dyskinesia and other extrapyramidal symptoms. Id. at *8. His awareness of the risk was consistent with the thorough warnings for tardive dyskinesia in the FDA-mandate class labeling for all antipsychotics, which he considered to be consistent with his understanding of the risk from other sources. Id. at **9-11. For plaintiff, the prescriber stood by his decision to prescribe the drug, noting “the psychotic symptoms which are terrible and unremitting and lead to very bad outcomes. And those are much more certain than the risks of possible side effects.” Id. at *19. Plaintiff attacked the class labeling as “cookie cutter” and the prescriber’s self-professed understanding of the risk as influenced by the marketing for the drug. Id. at **20-21.

The first question on appeal was whether the label itself was sufficient to warn of the risk of tardive dyskinesia. This was not a close call, as the “label unequivocally communicated the risk of tardive dyskinesia associated with the use of all antipsychotic drugs, including Risperdal.” Id. at *18. In addition, the prescriber “specifically testified that he considered the language of the Risperdal label adequate to warn him of the risk of tardive dyskinesia in Risperdal users at the time he prescribed it to Taylor.” Id. at **18-19. It does not appear that the plaintiff, despite an array of willing expert, had much to say about the adequacy of the label itself. This may have never featured in the trial court, but there would have been an obvious problem with saying that the defendant needed to change the class labeling to avoid liability—implied preemption. In this situation, the drug’s manufacturer could not have taken an independent action to change the already robust class labeling. That did not come up on appeal because the plaintiff argued that marketing undercut the actual content of the label. However, the Mississippi Products Liability Act limits the inquiry to the label itself and the Mississippi Supreme Court was unwilling to allow marketing evidence to be considered. Id. at **21-23. Thus, after fifteen years, an obviously flawed warnings claim—we have not even mentioned the obvious lack of proximate cause—went away.

The negligent misrepresentation claim was another matter, as marketing evidence counted. As an initial matter, the parties agreed that the focus on such a claim for a prescription drug was on the representations to the prescribing physician. From the summary of the evidence at trial, it does not appear that there was a specific representation ever made to the plaintiff’s prescriber that was proven to be false and relied upon in connection with plaintiff’s care. Instead, generic evidence purportedly showing that the manufacturer marketed the drug as having less of risk of tardive dyskinesia and other extrapyramidal symptoms than other drugs was not tied to the prescriber’s decisions with plaintiff. Id. at **26-32. There was no evidence that he saw any of the marketing pieces that plaintiff contended were misleading or acknowledged a specific representation that misled him.

Instead, plaintiff offered a less direct chain of purported proximate cause: 1) prescriber testimony that “I just remember the information about it, and I assume marketing as well as reading about it – I can’t always differentiate because I read journals and things, too – but all the information identified it as atypical and having fewer EPS side effects”; 2) his view from all sources was that the risk of tardive dyskinesia was lower with Risperdal than lower than with older antipsychotics; 3) that he probably would have prescribed another, unspecified medication if he believed the risk of tardive dyskinesia with Risperdal was actually equal to an older antipsychotic; and 4) expert testimony that plaintiff would not have developed tardive dyskinesia if she had been prescribed one of two other antipsychotic medications instead of switching to Risperdal. Id. at **26 & 33-37. For the court, this was enough to raise a jury question as to whether the marketing materials provided to the prescriber misrepresented “that the tardive dyskinesia risk was low and materially lower than the tardive dyskinesia risk from Haldol”—the drug plaintiff was initially prescribed, but not one of the drugs plaintiff’s expert said would have avoided her injury—whether the prescriber relied on such a misrepresentation, and whether it proximately caused plaintiff’s injury. Id. at **38-39.

Here are some problems with that analysis. For the same reason that an adequate pleading of a misrepresentation claim needs to include the who, what, where, and when of the representation, it is hard to see how a plaintiff can establish a misrepresentation without something more specific than what plaintiff offered here. Moreover, where the general representations to the prescriber were perceived as being consistent with what he understood from the medical literature and other sources, there does not seem to have been reliance on any misrepresentation. Any reliance also did not seem to result in the prescription to plaintiff, as the prescriber’s impression from medical literature also would have needed to have been different to affect the prescribing decision. Plaintiff’s evidence on proximate cause also did not seem to match up because the prescriber did not say he would have prescribed one of the two medications that plaintiff’s expert testified would have avoided her injury. That all does not sound like plaintiff established enough to get to a jury on a negligent misrepresentation claim, but, like we said, we might be a bit biased.

Part of why plaintiffs like misrepresentation claims is that they tend to be a better vehicle for punitive damages than failure to warn claims. Here, despite the broad evidence admitted on marketing, which plaintiff contended showed intent to justify punitive damages, the trial court did not let punitives go to the jury. Along the way, the court excluded the defendant’s guilty plea to allegations of improper marketing after plaintiff’s last prescription. Id. at *64. That is a correct decision, but still deserves some recognition. In Mississippi, the trial is supposed to evaluate all the evidence to see if a punitive damages claim should go to the jury. Id. at **65-66. Because the trial judge did that, the Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed. That deserves a little credit too.


Implied Preemption.  Off-label promotion. TwIqbal.  They make up a core of our posts, yet we never seem to tire of them.  Maybe our readers, especially interlopers from the other side of the v., tire of reading about them, but we can often find a wrinkle in a case that merits our huzzahs or inspires a rant.  Today’s case falls into the praiseworthy category, as the court dismissed a complaint predicated on violations of the FDCA in spite of sympathetic allegations that might have carried the day with some other courts. Markland v. Insys Therapeutics, Inc., — F. Supp. 3d –, 2017 WL 4102300 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 15, 2017), involved the alleged death of a patient as a result of respiratory distress from the defendant’s sublingual spray prescription painkiller drug, which she had started the day before.  Rather than offer the typical product liability claims under Florida law, perhaps because the labeling had extensive warnings on respiratory distress, plaintiff asserted only a claim for negligent marketing.  Calling it “negligent marketing” does not really identify what duty was allegedly breached, whether state law recognizes a claim for such a breach, and such a claim would be preempted.  The allegedly actionable conduct in Markland was promoting the drug for off-label use, like the chronic back pain of plaintiff’s decedent, as opposed to the approved indication for breakthrough pain with cancer.  While we do not know the merits, there were many allegations about off-label promotion, which seem to tie to the conduct at issue in well-publicized federal and state investigations.

Defendants moved to dismiss on various grounds, the most relevant of which (for our purposes) were that there was no claim under Florida law for this conduct and it would be impliedly preempted under Buckman anyway.  These had been hot topics recently in some Florida state and federal cases we have discussed, like Mink (here and here) and Wolicki-Gables, but those dealt with PMA devices and the additional issue of express preemption.  Here, with a prescription drug marketed under an NDA approval, there is no express preemption to navigate, but the plaintiff still had to walk a narrow path to state a claim that would not be impliedly preempted.  As we have said before, we think the appropriate order of analysis here would be the determine if there was a cognizable state law claim asserted and then determine if it was preempted, but the Markland court did not separate out its analysis.  It also did not weigh in on whether the allegations here were of truthful off-label promotion that might implicate First Amendment protection.  Instead, it assumed that the off-label promotion alleged violated the FDCA’s prohibition on misbranding.  2017 WL 4102300, *6 & n.4.

The court could take this approach because the plaintiff’s claim was so squarely focused on alleged violations of the FDCA.  Since Buckman, plaintiffs tend to be a bit cagier in making it look like their claims were not predicated on violations of the FDCA or fraud on the FDA.  The Markland plaintiff, however, labeled the defendant’s alleged conduct as violating the FDCA, “federal law,” and “requirements imposed by the FDA regarding the condition that this drug should be utilized to treat cancer patients with breakthrough cancer pain.” Id. at *9.  “Hence, [the claim], while framed in the language of negligence, appears to derive from [defendant’s] alleged off-label promotion of [the drug]” and “the very concepts of off-label use and off-label marketing are born out of the FDCA.” Id.   This was well phrased, as was the later statement that “it is only because of the existence of the FDCA’s restrictions on off-label marketing that Mr. Markland claims [defendant’s] actions were improper or otherwise violated a duty.” Id.

This is the recipe for implied preemption under Buckman.  It also means there is no negligence claim under Florida law, “which bars plaintiffs from using state negligence actions to seek recovery for FDCA violations.” Id. at 10 (citing negligence per se cases).  Of course, Buckman recognized that the FDCA does not provide for a private right of action, and preempts claims with FDCA violations as “critical element[s],” which should prevent such piggybacking.  So, plaintiff’s case was done and could not be revived by amending the complaint.  In other words, there was no need for a second and third strike before judgment could be entered.  This was so despite the Court’s expression of compassion:

The Court does not question for a moment the grievous nature of Carolyn Markland’s death, nor the deep sadness Mr. Markland must face on a daily basis as a result of his wife’s untimely passing. Nonetheless, the Court must act within the bounds of the law.

Id. at *11.  This a good lesson, especially for courts sitting in diversity, that the law should not be expanded to allow for recovery by sympathetic who cannot make their case under accepted tort theories.


Normally, when we think of decisions relating to medical monitoring, the issue is whether a state will recognize medical monitoring for uninjured people as a separate claim or relief that can be sought under an existing theory of recovery.  Just last month, we noted that it looked like the issue had been largely resolved against allowing such claims or relief.  Sometimes, the issue is whether the plaintiff sufficiently pleads the elements of a medical monitoring claim in a jurisdiction that recognizes it.   Today’s case involves a different consideration of medical monitoring, looking at whether the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. 23 are met and a medical monitoring class can be certified.  There is quite a bit to Barraza v. C.R. Bard Inc., No. CV16-01374-PHX-DGC, 2017 WL 3976720 (D. Ariz. Sept. 11, 2017), and we are only going to focus we find most interesting.

Barraza comes from an IVC Filter MDL, which has been the source of some other decisions that drew our interest, and ultimately focused on the question of whether class certification was appropriate for eleven separate classes, each for the residents of a state that has recognized medical monitoring and had a resident proposed class representative.  Each class sought medical monitoring for people with one of seven of the defendant’s IVC filter devices in-place (after being implanted at any time) who had not brought a case alleging personal injury.  In other words, these were to be classes of uninjured plaintiffs with on-going use of the allegedly defective devices.  (Note that the proposed class definition does not expressly exclude all patients claiming current complications, but the court addresses the case as though it presents a “no injury” class, so we will too.)  Keep in mind that a common reason for rejecting medical monitoring has been that the tort system is predicating on an actual injury, giving rise to accrual of claims, damages that can be determined by somewhat predictable rules, a duty to mitigate, etc., and people who have not have an actual injury do not fit well within the existing tort system.  Someone with an actual injury, however, may be entitled to compensation for on-going medical care to minimize the progression or sequelae of the injury.  With that in mind, we turn to the evaluation of whether individual considerations or common issues predominate in trying to decide the elements of medical monitoring—as identified by the plaintiffs based on an amalgam of the law of the eleven states.

We will focus on the elements that mattered to the outcome.  While plaintiffs argued that negligent design and failure to warn could be decided on common evidence, the court disagreed.  The seven devices were designed and launched over a more than ten year period and exhibited different design features, manufacturing specifications, and testing.  Similarly, the labeling for the devices differed depending on the date and product, but seemed to address the risks that plaintiffs claim required monitoring.  “Trial of a single class representative’s claim would not suffice because the representative would have received a different filter with different warnings than many members of the class.”  Similarly, the application of affirmative defenses like assumption of the risk and contributory negligence would also turn on individual evidence about what the plaintiff and her doctor knew and did.  The court noted how some of the named plaintiffs—putative class representatives—had ignored recommendations for medical follow up and removal of the device they claim subjects them to an increased risk of harm requiring monitoring.  Thus, individual considerations in evaluating liability predominated and “the classes cannot be certified simply because Plaintiffs allegedly face a common risk and need medical monitoring.”

The related issues of whether the proposed monitoring was necessary and different from the treatment the plaintiffs would otherwise receive also turned on individual considerations.

Here, the amount of monitoring a class member would require in a normal course of her treatment and illness, without the monitoring sought in this case, is an individualized inquiry into the medical needs and ongoing course of treatment for each class member.

For instance, some named plaintiffs were already undergoing monitoring of their own doctor’s devising with different levels of compliance.

Even what law would apply to classes defined by the state of residency involved individual considerations as the state where each plaintiff’s implant surgery occurred, the state where the injury occurred, and the state where the defendant designed the products and drafted labeling could affect the law that would apply.

Put it all together and plaintiff did not come particularly close to satisfying the predominance requirement and class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a).  (The plaintiffs also tried for certification of a 23(b)(2) class, but that was pretty much a non-starter as the relief sought—paying for monitoring—is not injunctive.)  Some of the result here is likely due to the plaintiffs’ insistence on broad classes and the selection of putative class representatives with warts, but Barraza also illustrates how class treatment of medical monitoring claims should be a long shot even when state law allows monitoring for uninjured people.

The cases we typically write about focus on events after medical products have made their way through the applicable regulatory process and been marketed in the United States.  The marketed product is used, people claim to have been injured by it, and they sue the manufacturer under various product liability theories.  Often, in the course of seeking lots of discovery about the product and manufacturer, the plaintiffs in such cases will seek documents relating to foreign regulatory submissions and interaction.  While there might be some relevance of such documents in some cases, getting and producing them tends a pretty big pain for reasons like privacy laws and translation.  Plus, there is plenty of room for confusion given different regulatory standards in the United States and elsewhere around the world.  Under the old version of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26, however, some degree of burdensome foreign discovery was pretty standard in large drug or device litigation.  We have seen some signs (like here and here) that the new version of Rule 26 will be less friendly to plaintiffs seeking foreign fishing expeditions.

Schueneman v. Arena Pharms., Inc., No. 10cv1959-CAB (BLM), 2017 WL 3118738 (S.D. Cal. July 21, 2017) (Magistrate order), aff’d 2017 WL 3587961 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 21, 2017), is a securities case based on the allegation that the defendant pharmaceutical company defrauded investors by its representations about the likelihood that its new weight loss drug would get approved by FDA.  The focus of the allegation is about tumors in a rat study that ultimately led to FDA issuing a non-approvable letter in October 2010.  (As an aside, the drug was developed with a serotonin receptor subtype mechanism of action that was supposed to avoid heart valve issues seen with other weight loss drugs, litigation over which included allegations about a signal from tumors in a rat study—although the main plaintiff expert supporting that allegation did not get past Daubert.)  The non-approval was made public at that time, although the plaintiff investors claim that they continue to have been misled for another three months.  (The decisions do not mention either, but there was a fair amount of press on the rat study in September 2010 and the drug was ultimately approved, after more research, in June 2012.)  In March 2012, the company submitted an application to the European Medicines Agency to try to market the drug in Europe.  After some back and forth, the company withdrew that application in May 2013.  (We are feeling parenthetical, so we will note that the withdrawal of the European application was also the subject of U.S. press attention, spurred on by Public Citizen, whose actions often seem coordinated with litigation efforts.)  The plaintiffs sought every document conceivably related to the European application and its withdrawal, even though the allegations in the case were about earlier representations about FDA approval.  Defendants balked and the fight was joined.

The requirement that discovery be “relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case” allowed for a more rational analysis that we have seen in the past on such disputes.  Noting the “different standards utilized by the EMA and the FDA and the different time frames of the statements,” the court required plaintiffs to “explain how documents presented to the EMA, especially those unrelated to the Rat Study, are relevant to the issue in this case of whether Defendants ‘intentionally withheld information material to the market’s assessment of whether and when the FDA would likely approve [L]ocaserin.’”  2017 WL 3118738, *4.  Plaintiffs could not do that.  They also could not establish proportionality, a burden now assigned to the proponent of the discovery (although the posture here was a motion to compel rather than a motion for protective order).  Defendants had already produced or were producing lots of documents and estimated that a production of the documents at issue would take weeks and cost $80,000.  In the past, such a cost estimate for even marginal documents sought from a drug company would probably not be seen as an undue expense sufficient to cut off the discovery.  Now, in the age of proportionality, it is part of the puzzle:

Given the extremely broad discovery requests, including the fact that the requests are not limited to the Rat Study, the minimal relevance of the statements made after the class period in an application in the European Union involving drug standards that are different from those in the United States, and the large number of potentially responsive documents, the Court finds that requests 34-37 are not proportional to the needs of the case.

Id. Similar reasoning could be applied to disallow quite a few requests in drug and device product liability cases, particularly those on foreign regulatory discovery.

The defendant also forced plaintiffs to reveal the identity and contact information for six confidential informants relied upon for allegations in the complaint.  Plaintiffs claimed attorney work product protection, which the magistrate rejected and the district court found to be so frivolous as to merit the award of expenses under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5). Id. at **6-7; 2017 WL 3587961, *2.  We cannot recall seeing a product liability plaintiff resist discovery on the basis for allegations in a complaint on a claim of work product protection, so we will not dwell on this holding—but the same reasoning would apply.  Rather than just sound like homers and cheer when a drug company wins discovery motions, we will say that we like it when discovery is ordered on the actual allegations in the complaint and limited on issues outside of the allegations in the complaint.


We have offered our view that cases seeking to impose liability based on well-known risks found with an entire class of prescription medications tend to be weak.  We think design defect claims usually are clearly preempted in this context and warnings claims will often be preempted too, even with Levine’s high “clear evidence” hurdle.  Cases about thrombotic risks with hormonal contraceptives have featured prominently in such posts, like this opus, precisely because design is not the issue and FDA has long been intimately involved with labeling of these products.

Another obvious fertile ground for preemption has been with gastrointestinal bleeding with anticoagulants, something of the therapeutic flip side to the risk of thrombosis.  First, it is a well-known issue.  Our quick PubMed searches easily got us to articles about this from the 1950s.  Second, this risk has been described in drug labels for a long time.  We easily found this as the first warning in prescription labels as early as 1998, although we suspect they had been around for a few decades by that point.  Third, this risk has been seen with every anticoagulant since there have been anticoagulants.  We have no doubt that any anticoagulant drug coming to market gets a thorough review of its bleeding risk and its labeling about that risk by FDA.  This surely includes attention to any differences in the labeling of the different anticoagulants and whether any post-approval studies or adverse events merit changes.  These facts should make it hard to articulate, let alone prove, a design defect claim that gets by Bartlett or a warning claim that gets by Levine, unless Buckman gets ignored.

We say “should,” but, in all fairness, it certainly depends on where the case is and who is deciding it.  Even in the nascent era of drug and device product liability litigation where cases should pretty much be in federal court unless they are in state court in the defendant’s true home state, the court can be all but determinative of the decisions on litigation-altering issues.  The selection of court can, in turn, depend on the selection of the MDL’s home in litigations where the lawyer advertising drums up enough cases to get the JPML’s attention.  We were going to contrast cases decided by different MDL courts overseeing product liability litigation over the bleeding risk of relatively new prescription anticoagulants.  Instead, we will be discussing one decision addressing allegations we think are pretty typical of what is getting offered up elsewhere and our dear readers can draw their own conclusions.

Fortner v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., No. 17cv1562 (DLC), MDL No. 2754, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117030 (S.D.N.Y. July 26, 2017), comes out of the Eliquis MDL.  Based on the JPML’s statistics, when decided, there were 23 pending cases out of a total of 69 ever-filed cases in this relatively young MDL.  The drug was approved in 2012 with extensive warnings about the risk of bleeding.  Plaintiffs in the MDL offered various allegations about how the drug was defectively designed because it had a clotting risk, was not accompanied by a drug-specific clotting test, was not accompanied by an “antidote,” and was to be taken twice a day.  These same criticisms were offered as warnings claims, but there were no allegations that the manufacturer had received post-approval safety information triggering some alleged duty to try to change any aspect of the label through the CBE process.  The manufacturers challenged whether these allegations stated any state law claim that was not preempted and, before there was even an MDL established, dismissed a number of cases without prejudice in Utts I, which we discussed here.  After the MDL was established, the plaintiffs got another shot with amended complaints and still came up short in Utts II, this time with prejudice.  The court, in an exercise of magnanimity, invited the remaining plaintiffs to see if they could come up with complaints that stated a non-preempted claim.  That is how we get to Fortner, who alleged a variety of claims under Tennessee law based on the same allegations about the drug, manufacturers, and FDA that most of the remaining plaintiffs apparently offered.

As is often the case with pleading around statutes of limitation—complaints with dates for everything but when plaintiff’s alleged injury occurred—it looks like the fourth attempt at a complaint was modified to be vague, repeating allegations “in less detail and without identifying or appending the specific studies from which these allegations are drawn.” Id. at *7.  The Fortner court saw through this “pleading tactic” of “masking the basis for her claim”:  The complaint’s “claims do not become more plausible simply because the plaintiff has omitted from the FAC the sources upon which her conclusory factual allegations are based.” Id. at **7-8.  Well stated and clearly correct, but many courts let uncertainty work to the plaintiff’s advantage in this posture, despite TwIqbal’s requirement of factual allegations that plausibly state a claim.

The critical aspect of Fortner’s approach is that the court required the plaintiff to plead a warning claim based on “sufficient factual content to support a plausible inference that there exists newly acquired information such that the defendants could unilaterally have changed the Eliquis label to include additional warnings.” Id. at *8.  This, in turn, flowed from the court’s prior decisions holding that “post-approval failure to warn claims are preempted unless the plaintiff can plausibly allege that there existed ‘newly acquired information’ such that, pursuant to the Changes Being Effected (‘CBE’) regulation, the defendants could independently have updated the Eliquis label to include such warnings.” Id. at *5.  There is no such thing as a pre-approval warning claim—absent an allegation that the launch label resulted from fraud-on-the-FDA that side-stepped Buckman—so this is a pretty good statement of what a non-preempted prescription drug warnings claim should allege.

By contrast, under the court’s prior analysis, there is no such thing as a non-preempted post-approval design defect claim because “FDA regulations prohibit a change of the type implicated by the claim.” Id. Here, the first urged defect was twice daily dosing—which is a design issue if the plaintiff alleges the product should have been designed to deliver the effective dose by taking it once a day, for instance, and something that clearly cannot be changed without a new NDA.  The other urged defects are things we see as more labeling than design issues—lack of a drug-specific clotting test or an “antidote” to the drug that could be recommended or sold with the drug.  Even if such a test or antidote existed, it could not be sold with the drug based on anything the manufacturer could have done independent of FDA action.  In reaffirming its prior decision on the preemption of pre-approval design defect claims, the Fortner court noted that Yates was the only appellate court to address the issue and no binding authority disagrees with its analysis.

Based on a trio of preemption rulings at the pleading stage, it looks like the Eliquis MDL will be short lived.  That is not always the case with MDL proceedings based on dubious claims, where the burden of one-sided discovery and the weight of the docket tend to dictate the result more than anything approaching the merits.  In terms of issues that seem as obvious to us as preemption of pre-market prescription drug design defect—we note that “duh” and “no duh” mean the same thing, like “regardless” and “irregardless” or “flammable” and “inflammable”—it will help to have more appellate courts follow Yates.