Photo of Eric Alexander

Even if Bexis and McConnell like to sport overalls and tool around in souped-up tractors, we are not farmers.  We have grown enough heirloom tomatoes, ghost peppers, rainbow chard, purple basil, and other suburban garden staples, however, to know that “you reap what you sow” is usually true, assuming the levels of hydration, sunshine, and soil pH are appropriate.  (There are pleasant exceptions, like asparagus from prior owners or berries spread by critters, and undesired interlopers, like Japanese hops and any number of leafy weeds.)  It is often true in litigation too.  When the Bauman and Walden decisions came down in early 2014, it should have been apparent that the sort of litigation tourism that had driven so many verdicts and settlements based on fear of verdicts in plaintiff-friendly places was going to be a risky proposition going forward.  While we and many others touted these rulings and proclaimed what should happen with personal jurisdiction in such cases, the plaintiffs’ bar did not give up on what had been such a lucrative approach.  Instead, they continued filing multi-plaintiff cases in their desired jurisdictions, even though almost all of the plaintiffs had no ties to the jurisdiction and the defendants were not “at home” there.  They also fought against motions and appeals with sometimes creative arguments that generally flew in the face of what the Supreme Court had already ruled.  While these packaged tour cases remained in these dubious jurisdictions, they sometimes progressed to trial and, aided by lenient views of the admissibility of junky causation evidence or other rulings that tend to drive up verdicts, scored some really big verdicts.  While some defendants surely settled along the way, others stuck it out to get to appellate rulings that would undo everything with a pronouncement that “this plaintiff’s case never belonged here in the first place.”

If you are reading this and thinking about the talc litigation in Missouri, then you would be right.  It is not the only litigation to follow this pattern, but it has been one of the most visible.  The timeline implicated by Ristesund v. Johnson & Johnson, — S.W.3d –, 2018 WL 3193652 (Mo. Ct. App. June 29, 2018), is where we will start, because it shows the sowing to which we alluded so awkwardly above. Bauman and Walden come out in February 2014, signaling a tightening of the general personal jurisdiction standard and a refusal to expand the specific personal jurisdiction standard.  In September 2014, plaintiff, a South Dakota resident, filed a lawsuit in Missouri state court about alleged ovarian cancer from talc in cosmetic products along with a Missouri resident and seventy-three other non-Missouri residents.  Plaintiffs pushed forward through discovery and motions to a series of trials.  Motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction for the claims of the non-Missouri residents were denied based on the conclusion that the court’s jurisdictions over the claims of the sole Missouri resident was enough.  In February 2016, the estate of a non-Missouri plaintiff named Fox won a large verdict and then defendants appealed.  In May 2016, Ristesund won her own large verdict and then defendants appealed.  In June 2017, the Supreme Court issued the BMS decision, essentially rejecting reliance on the ties of (misjoined) plaintiffs to establish specific personal jurisdiction over the claims of a plaintiff who would not otherwise be able to establish general or specific personal jurisdiction.  In October 2017, the Missouri Court of Appeals ruled in Fox v. Johnson & Johnson, 539 S.W.3d 48 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017), that plaintiff did not establish personal jurisdiction consistent with constitutional requirements and should not get a chance to do so on remand.  (We detailed the decision here.)  The same court considered almost the same issues in Ristesund about two weeks ago.

Pretty straightforward, one would think.  Plaintiff, to her credit, even conceded that BMS controlled and the trial court lacked personal jurisdiction over defendants as to her claims. Ristesund, — S.W.3d –, 2018 WL 3193652, *2.  That meant the verdict could not stand.  The only issue left was plaintiff’s argument that “fairness requires” that she have an opportunity on remand to develop arguments and evidence support personal jurisdiction.  This is where that timeline mattered.  As in Fox, the plaintiff “had a full and ample opportunity to discovery and introduce any and all evidence that she believed would establish personal jurisdiction over the Defendants.” Id. at *3.  While not all plaintiffs try to gather and introduce evidence of personal jurisdiction, recall that this case was filed after Bauman was decided.  It went to trial after a personal jurisdiction motion was denied, an appeal on a companion case focused on personal jurisdiction, and scores of cases (see our cheat sheet) had been decided around the country on applications of Bauman that anyone would have realized undercut personal jurisdiction in this case.  The plaintiff lawyers pursuing all of these cases took a calculated gamble to work up these cases and win big verdicts in a court where personal jurisdiction was tenuous at best, as long as the defendants were willing to sustain the trial losses and get to appeals. Ristesund could have sued in South Dakota—where she lived—or in New Jersey—where the defendants were based—but she chose the litigation tourist route.

Her last gasp was to claim that BMS being decided after her trial verdict somehow entitled her to another chance to prove personal jurisdiction.  The court’s rejection of this contention can stand on its own.

Principles of fairness do not dictate or warrant remand. The pronouncement in BMS neither introduced new concepts in the law nor relied upon new principles of law. BMS was not a decision that “came out of nowhere.” To the contrary, the parties in BMS, as in Daimler, argued long standing principles of personal jurisdiction in our jurisprudence. The parties before us were well aware of the legal principles being argued before the Supreme Court, as evidenced by their pleadings and argument before the trial court.  Ristesund was not precluded from broadening the scope of her claims for personal jurisdiction while her case was before the trial court . . . . Similar to our reasoning in Fox, we are not persuaded that the law either warrants or permits us to now return this matter to the trial court for a “do-over.”

Id. at *5.  That sounds pretty fair to us.

It has been said, with maybe a bit of sarcasm, that a company developing a drug hopes that its drug will become successful enough to attract frivolous lawsuits.  OK, so maybe only outside lawyers have offered such an aphorism, but bear with us.  Imagine that a drug is developed to treat a really common condition, like high cholesterol, it becomes accepted as a first-line treatment, and becomes one of the most widely used prescription drugs of the last few decades.  Imagine then that the patient population that would take this drug has lots of co-morbidities and that, while the drug is being used on a long-term basis, some predictable portion of the drug’s users will develop a new condition, like diabetes.  Imagine then that, because the drug has been widely used for so long, there are lots of studies, published and unpublished, that look at measures like blood glucose and new diagnosis of diabetes, among many other things.  It should not be hard to imagine that thousands of the patients taking the drug would develop diabetes on the drug in the absence of any relationship and that plaintiff lawyers would round many of them up to sue based on the expectation that the lawyers and their favorite experts could gin up proof of causation that would survive a Daubert challenge if the manufacture did not pay to get rid of the litigation first.  This is hardly fancy as we have posted on multiple orders from Lipitor MDL (here, here, and here) that excluded plaintiffs’ causation experts and then granted summary judgment for the manufacturer across the board.

Much like the Zoloft MDL affirmance we lauded last year, all of this went up on appeal to either revive or affirm the end of an entire litigation.  We are pleased to say that In re Lipitor (Atorvastatin Calcium) Mkt’g, Sales Pracs. & Prods. Liab. Litig. (No. II), MDL No. 2502, — F.3d —, 2018 WL 2927629 (3d Cir. June 12, 2018), did the latter.  Without repeating the history of all of the decisions below that we detailed previously, there were five basic issues on appeal, the admissibility of each of the three experts plaintiffs offered, whether plaintiffs could use other evidence to establish causation without experts, and whether plaintiffs’ responses to show cause orders were sufficient to avoid summary judgment.  Each deserves some attention.

Plaintiffs’ statistician was up first.  His approach was to re-analyze clinical trial data to suggest that there was an increase in blood glucose levels and infer that as proof of causation for diabetes.  The disconnect here is fairly obvious, but the statistician compounded the problem by including both patients with a single instances of elevated glucose levels during the trials and patients with elevated glucose levels before the study began. Id. at *4.  Plaintiffs, their statistician, and other experts had agreed that a single increased glucose level did not indicate diabetes. Id. The statistician also agreed, as the MDL court put it, that he “lacked the expertise to opine about any implications that single glucose readings might have about the possibility of new-onset diabetes.” Id. This might have been enough to exclude his opinions, but he also relied on one test of statistical significance after the standard test failed and presented calculations of average blood glucose increases in a misleading and result-driven fashion. Id. at **5-6.  He also re-analyzed a study that had found no increased in the rate of diabetes with the drug compared to placebo based on a applying a new definition of diabetes after the fact and by someone who lacked relevant expertise. Id. at **6-8.  The Fourth Circuit affirmed the exclusion of his opinion, noting that the MDL court “properly discharged its gatekeeping duty” by weighing “classic concerns regarding reliability and relevance.” Id. at *6.

Plaintiffs also offered an internist to interpret the medical literature and perform meta-analysis of select studies, which he attempted to dress up with a purported application of the Bradford Hill criteria.  Noting the importance of dose to these analyses, the MDL court asked the internist to provide an analysis specific to each commercially available dose of the drug.  The MDL court ultimately excluded his causation opinion as to all but the highest dose because he acknowledged there was not a statistically significant increased risk of diabetes for the other doses. Id. at *9.  On appeal, plaintiffs challenged that their internist could not just lump all the doses together and offer a single causation opinion.  Given the facts here—like a 10 mg low dose, a 80 mg high dose, and studies specific to each dose—we do not think this requirement should have been the least bit controversial.  The Fourth Circuit, however, while holding that the MDL court did not “abuse its discretion in asking the expert to produce a dose-by-dose analysis,” cautioned that this was not a new requirement for all cases. Id. at *10.  The more serious, and recurring, issue was whether statistical significance was required for a causation opinion based on epidemiologic evidence and the Bradford Hill criteria.  Again, we think the Fourth Circuit could have gone a little farther—like you always or almost always need epidemiologic evidence as a starting point for causation in a product liability case and epidemiologic evidence must be statistically significant (with multiple studies with an increased risk greater than 2.0) to count—but its conclusion that the MDL court had not abused its discretion on the record here was good enough.  Specifically, the internist’s purported application of the Bradford Hill criteria and failure to establish that reliance on non-statistically significant results was accepted by epidemiologists were enough for the court to find his causation opinions unreliable. Id. at *12.

Plaintiffs also offered another internist to opine on specific causation for one of the bellwether plaintiffs.  While the plaintiffs touted that this expert had used a differential diagnosis to come to her opinion, the expert herself did not say that she did and claimed to use a methodology for her opinion in litigation that she had never used in her own practice. Id. at *13.  She also could not rule out other causes like the plaintiff’s weight and weight gain and relied too heavily on the post hoc ergo prompter hac fallacy. Id. at *15.  Again, this exclusion was within the MDL judge’s discretion.

Like the MDL court, the Fourth Circuit did not a bright line rule on whether general medical causation for product liability cases involving a pharmaceutical could ever be established without any expert testimony from the plaintiff.  We think the better approach, as spelled out in some state’s law, is to require expert testimony on these issues.  However, the Fourth Circuit’s conclusion that the specific non-expert evidence offered by plaintiffs—principally snippets from U.S. and foreign labeling—was not enough to establish causation is fine by us.  The causation issues are “complex and manifold” and the non-expert evidence from plaintiffs “isn’t especially strong.” Id. at *17 (contraction in the original).  So, the bottom line was more than fine by us:  “To hand to the jury the evidence here and ask it to reach a conclusion as to causation with any amount of certainty would be farcical and would likely result in a verdict steeped in speculation.” Id. Put another way, if a court is supposed to be the gatekeeper for expert evidence on key issues, it cannot just allow dubious non-expert evidence to suffice on an issue that would require an expert under Rule 702.

The last issue for the Fourth Circuit to address was whether the MDL court could require the remaining plaintiffs to come forward with evidence showing they could prove specific causation after the Daubert and summary judgment orders.  Plaintiffs’ argument on this was essentially that the MDL should have remanded all the cases rather than fulfilling the mission of the MDL court to decide common pretrial issues.  This argument was a bit disingenuous, because the plaintiffs surely would have been comfortable with summary judgment or Daubert motions being denied across the board had the rulings on the bellwether cases gone their way.  “Here, it was the district court’s prerogative to determine whether it could dispose of the cases before it on the merits.” Id. at *18.  We may not always be a fan of the direction MDL courts have taken in the last decade or so, but they are supposed to do what the MDL court did here.  At the end of the day, this MDL court “discharged [its] duties meticulously and thoughtfully” an ended a litigation as it should have been – with the manufacturer winning without facing the uncertainty of jury trials or succumbing to the pressure of a large number of pending cases.

Since Conte in 2008, we have not made a secret of our view that innovator liability is a bad idea, contrary to traditional tort law principles and to sound public policy.  We, especially Bexis, may even be accused of being somewhat obsessed with chronicling the decisions, big and small, on this issue over close to a decade.  We have kept a scorecard of the decisions and commemorated the one-hundredth decision.  We tracked when the Alabama legislature got sick of the turbulent expansion by the courts and kept product liability limited to the product designed, manufactured, or sold/leased by the defendant.  We have peppered our top and bottom ten lists with these decisions and we expect they will find places on our august enumerations for the eleventh year in a row this December.

The decision in In re Zofran (Ondansetron) Prods. Liab. Litig., MDL No. 1:15-md-2657-FDS, 2018 WL 2317525 (D. Mass. May 21, 2018), has familiar ring to it.  Among the claims presented in this MDL are those against the branded manufacturer from the offspring of women who received generic versions of a prescription antiemetic.  These plaintiffs sought to impose innovator liability on the theory that the branded manufacturer had made misrepresentations to unspecified doctors that somehow encouraged the off-label prescription to pregnant women for morning sickness without disclosing a purported risk of birth defects.  (As an aside, while not in the decision, this is considered an essential medication by WHO and the current labeling suggests that FDA rejects that any birth defect risk has been established.)  Last year, the court ruled on a motion to dismiss this version of innovator liability under Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Massachusetts, New York, and Oklahoma law.  We discussed it here  and it took on honorable mention on last year’s top ten list.  Other plaintiffs persisted with these claims and the branded manufacturer defendant filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings.  After some voluntary dismissals, the court considered the issue under the law of Oklahoma (again), Connecticut, and New Jersey.

Why is this worth a post instead of just an update to our scorecard? Well, there have been two really big, bad decisions on innovator liability since the court’s prior decision and we like to make sure the majority position continues to hold after such dreck.  The first innovator abomination was T.H. v. Novartis Pharm. Co., which we railed about here and took over the spot of worst case of 2017 in a rare supplemental shuffling of the list.  We have said quite a bit about why this decision, and the Court of Appeals decision before it, were especially bad, extending innovator liability into perpetual liability under the guise of foreseeability.  A few months later, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court a mile away from the Zofran MDL issued its own stinker in Rafferty v. Merck & Co., Inc., reversing a lower court rejection of innovator liability.   Even with the “limitation” that innovator liability would only for “reckless” conduct in failing to update the branded drug’s label, there is a good chance that this will find a place on the list of 2018’s worst come December.  There was also a good decision a few weeks ago from the West Virginia Supreme Court soundly rejecting innovator liability in McNair v. Johnson & Johnson, which may end up with a place on 2018’s best list.  More important than our lists—breathe, Bexis, breathe—is that the Zofran court reviewed and considered these decisions before addressing the merits.

The Oklahoma plaintiff’s claim was easy, given the court’s evaluation of Oklahoma law less than a year ago. “While it is true that the minority view has gained ground in the last year with the California and Massachusetts opinions, that is not sufficient under the circumstances to tip the balance.”  2018 WL 2317525, *4.

The court had not previously considered Connecticut law and the Connecticut state courts had not previously considered the issue. The Sixth Circuit had, though.  Connecticut was one of the 22 states at issue in In re Darvocet, which we lauded here before giving it the top spot in our 2014 list.  The Darvocet analysis was that the Connecticut Product Liability Act provided the sole remedy for misrepresentation claims asserted and it required the product at issue to be the defendant’s to impose liability.  While not binding, “In re Darvocet is a 2014 decision by a federal appellate court that addresses the issue in comprehensive terms, and there appears to be no Connecticut authority suggesting a contrary result.” Id. at *5.

Predictably, In re Darvocet (in the district court) had addressed New Jersey law and New Jersey lower courts have addressed the issue a few times, even if the New Jersey Supreme Court has not.  They all came out against innovator liability, with pre-Conte cases followed post-Conte.  (See here and the New Jersey part of this.)  The New Jersey PLA also limits liability to the manufacturer or seller of the product that allegedly hurt the plaintiff and misrepresentation claims like the plaintiffs assert against the branded manufacturer are subsumed by the NJPLA. Id. Thus, there is no innovator liability under New Jersey law.

Despite our retrospective here, we do not see this decision making this year’s top ten list. However, the First Circuit could certainly take high honors by affirming this or the prior Zofran MDL decision.  Just saying.

Prescription drug manufacturers are not insurers of injuries sustained while taking their products. Even in the most plaintiff-friendly jurisdictions, there needs to be some fault—whether framed in negligence, strict liability, or something else—and causation between the fault and the injury. It is surely not easy to stomach for someone who sustains such an injury while taking a drug, but sometimes there is no fault even if there is a significant injury related to the use of the drug. If the drug’s manufacturer warned about the risk of plaintiff’s ultimate injury consistent with the available evidence, which it examined and shared with FDA appropriately in connection with approval and after approval, and the prescribing physician(s) gave due consideration to the risk in treating the patient, then the manufacturer did what it was supposed to do and the patient might suppress the urge to sue someone. Often, of course, such patients become plaintiffs and courts are faced with deciding summary judgment in cases with a real injury, related in some way to the use of the drug, but no real claim against the manufacturer. In those situations, the courts often get it wrong and allow some claim to get past summary judgment. Nelson v. Biogen Idec, No. 12-7317 (JMV) (MF), 2018 WL 1960441 (D.N.J. Apr. 25, 2018), got it right. Joe Blute and Yalonda Howze of Mintz Levin, who defended the case and told us about it, deserve some credit for that.

The facts of Nelson do not exactly scream failure to warn, even with the severity of the injury claimed by the plaintiff, who received Tysabri, a prescription medication for his multiple sclerosis. He claimed to have developed progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (“PML”), a condition about which the drug’s labeling contained black box warning, multiple other warnings in physician labeling, and warnings in a medication guide that the drug’s Risk Evaluation and Management Strategy (“REMS”) program required the patient acknowledge when receiving the drug through infusion provided by a healthcare provider. With such extensive warnings also comes the expected developed record of interacting with FDA about PML, which we will attempt to summarize. The medication was approved in 2004, but withdrawn because of PML cases the next year. PML results from exposure to the JC virus, which is prevalent in humans but only causes PML in vulnerable patients. Before seeking to bring the drug back to market, the manufacturer conducted FDA-requested research on testing for the JC virus. After taking an advisory committee recommendation, FDA re-approved the drug in 2006 with a slew of robust warnings on PML and a REMS program that essentially documented understanding and/or acceptance of the PML risk at each step of the prescribing chain every time the patient received the drug. The label was updated in August 2008, November 2009, and July 2010 to provide more information on the PML risk. Meanwhile, the manufacturer worked to develop a better assay to detect exposure to the JC virus. After years of research and interaction with FDA, in 2012, a new assay was approved and the label was amended to reference it.

Meanwhile, plaintiff was prescribed the drug for his MS in April 2008 after being advised of the PML risk. Plaintiff moved and continued on the drug when prescribed by two other physicians, each of whom also warned him of the risk of PML. Plaintiff was negative for the JC virus in 2009, but started demonstrating signs of PML in 2010, which was confirmed later that year by brain biopsy. Plaintiff sued and was on the fifth version of his complaint when the court considered summary judgment on plaintiff’s remaining claim for failure to warn under the New Jersey Product Liability Act (along with a Daubert motion that was denied as moot).

The court started its analysis with a discussion of three prior decisions on similar claims with the same drug. We will skip that, partly because we have discussed these cases before.  Because this was under the NJPLA, the first issue was whether the “super-presumption” of the adequacy of the PML warnings would apply given plaintiff’s argument about post-approval compliance. The presumption did not look to be dispositive, as the court noted that the substance of the warnings to both the prescribing physicians and the patient were clear, strong, and effective. Yet, the court found that there was no evidence of “manipulation of the post-market regulatory process,” the basis of the so-called “McDarby exception,” noting the interaction between the manufacturer and FDA on an assay that could be used to detect the JC virus in connection with the use of the drug. (The court also assumed without deciding that the McDarby exception could apply.) In the face of this presumption, plaintiff relied on proposed expert testimony that only indirectly addressed the adequacy of warnings. His expert claimed a better assay could have been developed and approved in time to affect the various physicians’ decision to prescribe the drug to plaintiff. Even if his testimony were admissible and if he took the next step of connecting a new assay to the content of the drug’s label—which he did not and could not as a non-physician—there were still obvious issues with relying on this testimony to establish an inadequate label and proximate cause for failure to warn, including that the prescribing physicians were aware of the PML risk and discussed it with the plaintiff on multiple occasions. Put it all together and there was no evidence to carry a failure to warn claim, with or without a presumption of adequacy

As a bit of overkill, the court went ahead and considered the manufacturer’s preemption defense, which argued that the proposed changes to the drug’s label would have been impossible to make during the relevant time. The prior decisions that we elided above also found impossibility preemption, but they were not decided in the Third Circuit after the Fosamax decision tried to make the application of Levine’s once-novel “clear evidence” standard just a question for juries. Even acknowledging the high standard and the decision in Fosamax (albeit with a recurring, and surely unintentional, misspelling), the court still found “There is clear evidence that FDA would not have approved an earlier change to the Tysabri label or have approved the JC Virus assay.” FDA specifically rejected similar proposals twice in 2010, before approving the assay and corresponding labeling change in 2012 after additional research had been committed. That was pretty clear evidence of impossibility back when plaintiff was taking the drug.

So, the manufacturer won summary judgment thrice over. The co-developer also won because it had no ability to change the label, a useful nugget as innovator liability and other theories to impose liability on other defendants continue to get raised when the logical defendant is not liable. In Nelson, no defendant was liable to an injury that, while unfortunate and serious, was warned of about as thoroughly as is possible with a prescription drug. We would prefer such a case never to have been brought or to have been dismissed for failure to state a claim, but summary judgment is still the right result.

 

Today’s post is another guest post from friend of the Blog Kevin Hara, of Reed Smith, who channels our resident movie critic in this wide-ranging discussion of pleading and procedural weirdness.  As always with our guest posts, the author deserves 100% of the credit, and any blame, for what follows.

**********

If ever one wanted to feature a case where the plaintiffs and their attorneys fumbled and stumbled around like Keystone cops, it would be Paulsen v. Abbott Laboratories, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50256 (N.D. Ill. March 27, 2018), involving the prescription drug Lupron, used to treat endometriosis.  The case really reminded me of the madcap, masterful ensemble movie, “It’s A Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World” (hereinafter, “Mad World”) (yes, it’s a bit dated in some ways, but it still merits watching if you haven’t) with a veritable Who’s Who of 1950s-1960s Hollywood comedy royalty, including Edie Adams, Sid Caesar, Milton Berle, Ethel Merman, Jonathan Winters, Terry Thomas, Mickey Rooney, Phil Silvers, and Buddy Hackett.  Not to mention two time Oscar Winner Spencer Tracy and Jimmy Durante, who literally kicks the bucket as his character passes away and starts the mayhem.  Even if one does not consider the film a classic, its cultural relevance is beyond debate, as in addition to the headliners, the supporting cast included Peter Falk, Eddie “Rochester” Anderson, the 3 Stooges, and the great Arnold Stang.  Moreover, it bears mention that the renowned director of Mad World, was Stanley Kramer, more recognized for his social dramas, including Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner, The Defiant Ones, and Judgment at Nuremberg.  With such an accumulation of talent, it comes as no surprise that Mad World received six Academy Award and two Golden Globe nominations, and is categorized by many as an all-time classic in American movie history.  The plot is full of twists and turns, but beautifully elevated, with stellar writing and acting to match: 5 strangers witness an accident, and simultaneously learn about a large sum of money hidden in a park, buried beneath a large “W,” with Durante’s last gasp.  At first, they agreed to equal shares of the $350,000, but soon each plots to recover the loot on his own, and everyone begins a mad dash with assorted partners in crime (spouses, friends, relatives, etc.) to be the first to reach the cash.  In so doing, each of five groups tries to undermine the others, and they all encounter setbacks from being locked in the basement of a hardware store, stranded on a highway with a child’s bicycle, sinking in a river, a drunken airplane pilot, and more.  (For those of you from younger generations who are Googling the names or the movie above, you might be more familiar with a newer iteration of a similar story in the movie Rat Race, starring Whoopi Goldberg, Dean Cain, John Cleese, Cuba Gooding, Jr., Cathy and Kathy Bates, among others.)

If you have not seen the movie, you certainly should, but one iconic scene essentially captures the film, a sequence in which Winters demolishes an entire gas station, mostly by hand, in several hilarious, frenetic minutes. The movie ends with all of the misguided, money hungry adventurers in the hospital with multiple injuries, but none of the treasure.  In a last, desperate (and shameless) grab for the bounty, the hapless male contingent is catapulted, one by one, from the ladder of a fire engine attempting to rescue them, as the terrified crowd below watches and the entire haul slowly floats to the now delighted onlookers.  In short, grasping for money, at the expense of ethics, morality, and intelligent planning gets you nowhere.

Procedural History

Much like the film, Paulsen has misdeeds galore, with seeming chaos at every turn, thanks to its beginning as a multi-plaintiff, misjoined complaint with a California resident, and a Georgia resident (Ms. Paulsen) bringing an action in the Eastern District of New York in April 2010. See Cardenas v. Abbott Labs., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116879 (N.D. Ill. March 7, 2011).  Plaintiffs alleged injuries as a result of injections of the drug, and asserted negligence, strict liability, failure to warn, breach of warranty and fraud causes of action against various defendants.  In homage to the movie, it is fitting to provide aliases for the defendants using the names of the actors in the movie – because it is the plaintiff’s shenanigans that are the focus here – not the defendants’ titles and actions. Therefore, in that regard, the defendants are now dubbed Abbott Laboratories (hereinafter “Sid”), Takeda Pharmaceuticals of North America, Inc., (“Ethel”),Takeda Chemical Industries, Inc., (“Milton”) and TAP Pharmaceutical Products, Inc. (“Jonathan”) (collectively, “Defendants”). Id. at *3.  The Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, objecting to venue, so plaintiffs amended their complaint, adding New York and New Jersey plaintiffs.  Didn’t matter.  The case was transferred to the Southern District of New York. Id. Defendants again filed a motion to dismiss, and the Southern District of New York transferred the action to the Northern District of Illinois in 2011, addressing issues of venue and personal jurisdiction, and dismissing defendant “Milton” because it was not served with the complaint. Id. (but more on that later). Id. Finally, the Illinois federal court considered a substantive (Rule 12 (b)(6)) motion to dismiss, and found that plaintiffs provided “nothing but the fact that [they] received Lupron injections ‘on several occasions.’” Id. at *12-13.  For example, the complaint failed to indicate “whether Plaintiffs [were] women, nor [did] it establish whether Lupron was prescribed to Plaintiffs” for on- or for off-label use.  All these omitted facts were, obviously, “particularly within Plaintiffs’ control.” Id. Therefore, the court dismissed the complaint, with leave to amend to allow plaintiffs to put “some minimal amount of flesh” on their bare-bones allegations. Id. at *13-14.

Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in October 2011, and discovery commenced, but with Paulsen the only remaining plaintiff, in August 2013 her counsel moved to withdraw. See Paulsen, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50256, at *8.  The judge granted the motion, allowing plaintiff 30 days to file an appearance.  That didn’t happen either.  The action was dismissed for lack of prosecution in October 2013 after plaintiff failed to appear. Id.

Plaintiff’s Second Action

Undeterred, plaintiff filed a new complaint on May 11, 2015, alleging claims for negligence, strict product liability, failure to warn, breach of warranty, and fraud against “Sid”, “Ethel”, “Milton” and “Jonathan”. Id. at *9.  Plaintiff alleged that she had been injected with Lupron twice for on-label treatments, and had suffered various injuries, all of which occurred in Georgia. Id. at * 3-4.  Defendants moved to dismiss, claiming that the lawsuit was untimely and seeking application of the six-month limitation in Georgia’s savings statute [Ga. Code Ann. § 9-2-61(a)], while plaintiff maintained that Illinois’s one-year period governed the issue, 735 ILCS 5/13-217.6. Id. at *10.  After determining that the only Illinois citizen, Sid, was a real party in interest (a dispositive issue, because if not, Georgia’s statute controlled time-barring the case), the judge denied the motions to dismiss without prejudice. Id. at *10-11.

Dismissal of Milton and Jonathan

Defendants resubmitted their motions to dismiss in April 2017, arguing that Milton and Jonathan were not properly served, an interesting issue that itself could be the subject of its own post. Id. at *17-18.  Suffice it to say that the court ruled that service on Jonathan’s surviving corporation (because Jonathan no longer existed at the time the case was originally filed in 2010) was improper because in essence, “[p]laintiff cannot effectively serve one corporation by serving a completely different corporation.” Id. at *19, 25.

As to Milton, the court did not reach the service issue because plaintiff voluntarily dismissed Milton on July 9, 2011, − but refiled the action, again, on May 11, 2015, well outside the one-year limitation of Illinois’s savings statute. Id. at *26-27.  Thus, the court dismissed the claims against Milton with prejudice. Id. at *27.

Rule 12(b)(6) Motion

At long last, the court turned to the Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state any cognizable claims, pursuant to TwIqbal.  By now, it should hardly surprise anyone (even plaintiff herself, one would think) that the claims were almost all poorly pled, and most were dismissed.  For example there was “nothing in the complaint that connect[ed] Ethel to Jonathan and its alleged responsibility for Lupron-related activities beyond their shared parent company.” Id. at *30.  The familiar catchall of “Defendants” failed to state a plausible claim against Ethel and was “therefore insufficient to satisfy Rule 8’s pleading the claims,” resulting in the court’s dismissal of all claims without prejudice. Id.

Merits of Plaintiff’s Causes of Action

Turning to the merits, court next conducted a choice of law analysis, using Illinois’s “most significant relationship test” to determine whether Illinois or Georgia law applied. The court ultimately decided that Georgia law would apply, largely because plaintiff resided in, and suffered her alleged injuries in that state, which had the strongest interest in the litigation. Id. at *35-37.

After determining that plaintiff sufficiently alleged that Sid played a role in manufacturing Lupron beyond its ownership of Jonathan, the court declined to dismiss strict products liability and failure to warn claims against Sid. Id. at *40.  However, it ruled that plaintiff’s allegations that Sid failed to adequately test the product before approval, did not advise “Plaintiffs and their physicians,” and misrepresented “the dangers associated with the use of Lupron,” failed to allege either that Sid owed or breached a duty to plaintiff. Id. at *45.  The allegations could not support plaintiff’s negligence claims against that defendant. Id. Nor could plaintiff state a claim for express warranty through statements that Defendants “expressly represented” that Lupron was “safe and efficacious,” “safe and fit for its intended use,” or “of merchantable quality.” Id. at *46-47.  In dismissing plaintiff’s claim, the court observed that “Plaintiff [did] not identify any specific warranty that Sid made to her … “nor [did] she identify the content of any statement by Abbot.” Id. at *47.  Similarly, plaintiff’s breach of implied warranty claim failed because she could not establish privity – as the complaint stated only that she used Lupron, and was devoid of allegations “that she purchased it.” Id. at * 49.

Further – and utterly unsurprisingly by this point − plaintiff’s fraudulent misrepresentation claim was not pled with the heightened particularity required by Rule 9(b), “[t]he who, what, when, where, and how: the first paragraph of any newspaper story.” Id. at *50 (citation omitted).  Rather, the complaint merely claimed that Defendants generally misrepresented the product’s safety in its labeling, marketing, and advertising over several decades. Id. However, plaintiff failed to articulate “who made these statements (other than Defendants, without specifying which Defendant made which statement), where and when these statements were made (other than to say sometime in the 1990s-2000 in Georgia and elsewhere), or how exactly Lupron’s safety was misrepresented.” Id. at *51.  Finally, her negligent misrepresentation claim was also doomed absent “allegations pointing to [defendant’s] statements on which Plaintiff relied” prior to her Lupron injection. Id.  Therefore, the court concluded that plaintiff’s negligent misrepresentation claim could not proceed “under Rule 8’s pleading standard,” and it too, was dismissed. Id. at *52-53.

In a nutshell, plaintiff ran afoul of every tenet of basic pleading 101 by repeatedly offering only threadbare allegations without specific facts; generalized and conclusory allegations leveled only at “Defendants;” and rote recitations of the elements of a claim without the facts to support it. However, to our chagrin, and much more to that of the Defendants, the court dismissed all of plaintiff’s claims, except for strict product liability and failure to warn, with leave to amend, despite seven years of failed pleadings. Id. at *54.  At least, the court issued plaintiff a none too subtle warning, stating it was “cognizant of the long procedural history,” and conditioning its leave for plaintiff to file an “amended complaint consistent with this opinion, if Plaintiff believes that she can overcome the deficiencies identified above for the dismissed claims.” Id. at *55 (emphasis added).

Given Plaintiff’s history of inartful pleading, repeated procedural errors, and other tactical blunders, one can expect, and hope, that like the buffoons in “Mad World,” when this case finally does end, plaintiff and her attorneys will wind up empty-handed.

 

This is not new. PMA devices should have broad preemption against product liability claims. Not just from the express preemption provisions of the MDA, but from attempts to get around express preemption by basing claims on violations of the FDCA and running smack into implied preemption under Buckman. We have talked about the narrow gap a claim needs to squeeze through to not be subject to either version of preemption. We have, when we were feeling mythological, likened this to traversing the Strait of Messina between Scylla and Charybdis. Without overdoing the analogy, each state law claim must neither 1) impose a requirement that is “different from or in addition to” the PMA approval requirements, nor 2) have federal requirements as a “critical element,” or it will be smashed or swallowed into preemption oblivion. A good analysis of these issues starts with looking at what plaintiffs have alleged and how that fits within the cognizable causes of action under applicable state law.

In In re Smith & Nephew BHR & R3 Hip Implant Prods. Liab. Litig., No. CCB-172775, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49021 (D. Md. Mar. 26, 2018), more than two hundred plaintiffs purported to assert fairly standard state law product liability causes of action against the manufacturer of a PMA hip implant. The actual allegations of what the manufacturer did wrong and what was bad about the device were not so standard. They were very heavy on alleged non-compliance with a range of FDA requirements. The defendant moved to dismiss under express and implied preemption and TwIqbal. We will focus on the preemption part and will resist griping about how the TwIqbal analysis should have come before the preemption analysis. We cannot, however, avoid commenting on the decision to address whether state law claims—under the law of forty-two states—are preempted without looking at state law. While the defendant may have liked the court’s willingness to address preemption on a motion to dismiss—something the plaintiffs resisted—the limited analysis helped to predict the result. The court said that “there is little need to analyze the elements of underlying state laws” and that it was “merely deciding which claims, and which arguments within those claims, would run afoul of state requirements that differ from and add to federal regulations,” but states do not impose requirements unless there is some statutory or common law claim that fits what plaintiff is complaining about in the case. Id. at **61-62.

The court started its preemption analysis by citing some cases we like, such as Mensing and the Bexis favorite Puerto Rico v. Franklin California Tax-Free Trust, 136 S. Ct. 1938, 1946 (2016), on no presumption against preemption. It then cited some cases we do not like, such as Mink and Bausch on parallel claims. Id. at *66. When it said this, we knew where things were headed:

So, if a plaintiff may succeed on her state law claim by proving conduct that violates federal requirements, then that claim parallels federal requirements. The state law reliance on a federal regulation need not be explicit. Rather the elements of traditional state laws need only be satisfied by conduct leading to a violation of a federal regulation.

Id. Not only is that bit of bad logic eerily reminiscent of another case following Bausch that we lambasted, but you might want to look at the “elements of traditional state laws” before you declare them parallel to federal requirements. And there is that whole Scylla/Buckman part of the preemption analysis that cannot be defined away. With this background, the court’s analysis actually started out pretty well with strict liability design defect claims getting sucked down into the sea. “[P]remarket approval is FDA recognition of a particular medial device’s fitness for the market. Having received that approval, the BHR system cannot be labeled unreasonably dangerous by state law without imposing requirements on medical devices different from or in addition to federal regulations.” Id. at **67-68 (citing Reigel). Not bad.

The rest was. Claims for undifferentiated negligence, negligence per se—with no separate analysis—failure to warn, negligent misrepresentation, express warranty, and manufacturing defect were all considered parallel claims because they were based on the manufacturer’s “alleged failure to comply with duties already required by the FDA.” Id. at **69-70. Even if were not for Buckman, this is not what makes a state law claim parallel to a federal requirement. There needs to be a state law requirement that exists independent of FDA requirements and then it has to be parallel to the federal requirements. If state law required truthful communications about the risks and benefits of all products sold in the state and FDA required specific formats for communications about an approved device, but generally that communications about its risks and benefits be truthful, then that could be parallel. Those state law requirements probably apply equally to mushrooms as they do to implanted prescription medical devices.

By contrast, the purported state law requirement to train surgeons would be different than and in addition to federal requirements, because there is neither a federal requirement that surgeons be trained—states regulate the practice of medicine—nor a state law requirement that a manufacturer train surgeons before they can use its products. The court is correct that this claim is not impliedly preempted—it is not based on a federal requirement—but there needs to be a cognizable state law duty requiring training in the first place. Id. at *69 n.11. Similarly, the court held that a “failure to warn” claim based on reporting adverse events to FDA would not be expressly preempted, without considering whether state law imposes any duty to report—it does not. Id. at * 71. A claim for failure to warn “the general public or the medical community is, however, expressly preempted because there is no such parallel federal requirement”—but there is similarly no actual state law duty. Id. For negligent misrepresentation and express warranty, there are state law duties independent of any federal obligations and, here, we are not critical of the analysis. False marketing claims that a product is safer than it is or safer than a competing device can give rise to liability regardless of FDA requirements. So, we are fine with the court’s statement that “any state law claim that imposes liability for making false statements regarding the device’s relative safety parallels federal requirements,” even if we do not think the cases cited for that proposition are all good law. Id. at **72-73. We also agree that misrepresentation and warranty claims cannot be based on the alleged falsity of FDA-required statements about the device. Id. at *73. On manufacturing defect, the court reverted to an incomplete analysis, assuming that deviations from “the FDA’s approved design of the BHR device” could give rise to non-preempted state law claims, ignoring state law claims require manufacturing defects to render a product dangerous. Id. at *73.

Having found all these claims based on purported violations of FDA requirements to escape express preemption, without considering whether any state law authorized them, the court gave short shrift to implied preemption

All of the plaintiffs’ claims in the MACC fall within the states’ traditional power to regulate matters of health and safety. Not one cause of action tries to enforce a legal right held by a federal agency or relies on the statutory scheme for its existence—they all long predated modern medical devices.

Id. at **75-76. This is neither an accurate recap of what Buckman means, nor consistent with how the court had characterized plaintiffs’ causes of action as not seeking to impose liability based on violating requirements that were different from or in addition to FDA requirements. Rather than belabor the problems with this court’s analysis, we will end with pretty obvious gaffe. In returning to the purported state law claim for “failure to warn” by failing to report adverse events to FDA, the court concluded that “plaintiff’s failure to warn claims do not attempt to enforce the FDA’s right to be warned of information concerning the safety of approved medical devices” because plaintiffs claimed failing to report adverse events to FDA “violated a legal right owed to them.” Id. at *77. Presumably, that would be a right that the law of a state—or, rather, the law of 42 separate states—bestowed on private citizens based solely on federal law. To put it mildly, this is the kind of mess than can happen when preemption analyses skip steps and make unwarranted assumptions.

 

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.