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 The medication was approved in 2004, but withdrawn because of PML cases the next year.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.

 

This one comes from Alabama and it’s pretty straightforward – plaintiff’s claims are preempted and therefore dismissed with a little wiggle room left for an attempted amended complaint. But as we know, for Pre-Market Approved (PMA) devices, there is only a “narrow gap” between express and implied preemption through which a claim must fit to survive. And so far, plaintiff has been ping-ponging off the sides but hasn’t made it through the gap.

The case is Rice v. Allergan USA, Inc., 2018 WL 1618036 (N.D. Ala. Apr. 4, 2018). Plaintiff had LAP-BAND surgery to aid with weight loss. The LAP-BAND is a PMA device. After seven years, plaintiff started to experience difficulty swallowing and frequent vomiting and upon investigation it was discovered that the LAP-BAND had eroded into plaintiff’s stomach and had to be removed. Id. at *2. Plaintiff conceded several of her claims. Those that remained for ruling by the court were negligence, failure to warn, and negligent or fraudulent misrepresentation. Id. at *3. Plaintiff’s primary allegation in support of these claims was that while defendant’s label reported a 1% risk of erosion, studies revealed a higher complication rate. Id. at *2.

Because the LAP-BAND went through the PMA process, plaintiff’s claims are preempted unless they satisfy the “parallel claim doctrine.” That means plaintiff has to show that the state law duties she alleges defendant violated and for which she seeks damages are “genuinely equivalent” to the federal requirements imposed on the device. Id. at *5. Only when the state and federal duties are parallel will plaintiff’s claim not run afoul of the provision of the Medical Device Amendments (“MDA”) that a state not impose requirements that are “different from or in addition to” federal requirements. Id.

Plaintiff’s first negligence claim was for negligent design and manufacture. However, while she made several allegations about the device having significant risks, nowhere did plaintiff allege how the manufacturer’s duty of care under state law “parallels the federal requirement that the [device] be manufactured according to the approved specifications for the medical device.” Id. at *6. If the device was designed and manufactured according to its PMA specifications, then allowing a jury to find it was negligently designed or manufactured would be imposing a different or additional requirement on the manufacturer. Therefore, claim preempted.

Next up was plaintiff’s negligent failure to warn claim. The court actually broke the claim down into 5 theories on which failure to warn was premised: negligent marketing, negligent labeling, negligent failure to update labeling, negligent reporting, and negligent surveillance. Id. It’s worth noting here that the court applies all the same reasoning in concluding that plaintiff’s strict liability failure to warn claim is similarly preempted. Id. at *8.

Here plaintiff did cite federal regulations but still missed the mark. For instance, plaintiff cited 21 C.F.R. §99.101 which provides:

[a] manufacturer may disseminate written information concerning the safety, effectiveness, or benefit of a use not described in the approved labeling…provided that the manufacturer complies with all other relevant requirements under this part.

Plaintiff alleges that the defendant violated this federal regulation by failing to provide additional risk information about the device. But all this section does is provide a guideline should a manufacturer choose to disseminate additional information. Choosing not to do so doesn’t violate the provision. Id. at *6.

Plaintiff also cites to the Changes Being Effected (“CBE”) provisions arguing that the defendant violated those provisions by failing to implement a CBE warning. However, a CBE labeling-change is permission to change a label “while a manufacturer awaits a written FDA order approving the PMA supplement.” Id. at *7. But plaintiff did not allege that the defendant was awaiting an FDA order on a PMA supplement, so it is unknown if the provision even applies.

Plaintiff also tried to base her failure to warn claim on an alleged violation of defendant’s federal duties to report adverse events to the FDA and to conduct post-market surveillance. Id. But the court considered both of those claims impliedly preempted on the grounds that they were unlawful attempts to privately enforce the FDCA. The court said failure to report sounds like it could be failure to warn, but the requirement is to report to the FDA, not to plaintiff. And there simply is no state law cause of action for post-market surveillance. Id.

Finally, the court had to dismiss plaintiff’s misrepresentation claim based on plaintiff’s vague pleadings. If what plaintiff was alleging is that defendant should have disclosed additional information and such a disclosure requirement exceeded FDA’s requirements, the claim would be preempted as not parallel. If, on the other hand, plaintiff was alleging that the defendant “held its product out as meeting a higher standard than that required by the FDA,” such a claim would not be preempted. Id. Since the former is more likely, it appears that a properly pleaded claim is likely preempted.

Yesterday happened to be the deadline for plaintiff to file an amended complaint, which she did. A quick skim of the amended complaint leads us to believe it contains most of the same allegations and therefore deficiencies the court has already addressed. And, plaintiff re-pleaded the claims she conceded as insufficiently pleaded the first time around. We suspect another round of preemption briefing in this case’s future.

 

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.

 

It took a while for courts to catch on that implied preemption in drug cases depends on whether the plaintiffs can present “newly acquired evidence” of a relevant risk, but the argument seems to be gaining some traction. The first case to recognize the “newly acquired evidence” argument was the First Circuit’s Marcus v. Forest Pharmaceuticals opinion in 2015, which we covered here.  Since then, we have covered the topic at some length in connection with orders coming out of the Eliquis MDL in New York, which you can revisit here, here, here, and here.  These posts report on a series of orders in which the district judge dismissed multiple cases because federal law impliedly preempted the plaintiffs’ claims.

A district judge has now issued a similar dismissal ruling in a prescription drug case in the Northern District of Alabama, McGee v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharm., Inc., No. 4:15-cv-2082, 2018 WL 1399237 (N.D. Ala. Mar. 20, 2018).  Here is the gist of it.  We all understand that Wyeth v. Levine opened the anti-preemption door by recognizing that an innovator drug manufacturer could sometimes change its label without the FDA’s pre-approval through the Changed Being Effected (or “CBE”) process.  Because that allowed the manufacturer, under some circumstances, to change its label to accommodate state law without running afoul of federal law, implied preemption did not necessarily apply.  Then came PLIVA v. Mensing, which held that federal law impliedly preempted state-law failure-to-warn claims against generic drug manufactures because generic manufacturers cannot use the CBE process, and therefore cannot change their labels without pre-approval.  Because generic manufacturers cannot change their labeling to comply with state law without violating federal law, state law claims must give way.

In McGee, the district court joined others in recognizing that even an innovator manufacturer cannot use the CBE process unless there is “newly acquired evidence” of a causal association between a risk and the drug.  In that event, the innovators cannot change their drug labeling without the FDA’s pre-approval and implied preemption applies.  Id. at **3-4.  “So, if a plaintiff can allege the existence of newly-acquired information that supports a labeling change under the CBE regulation, and if the manufacturer subsequently fails to show by ‘clear evidence’ that the FDA would not have approved a change to the label, then a failure-to-warn claim will survive the manufacturer’s preemption defense.” Id. at *4.

In other words, before we even get to Wyeth v. Levine’s “clear evidence standard,” the plaintiff has to plead facts establishing that the manufacturer had newly acquired information and that the new information provides reasonable evidence of a causal association between the alleged risk and the drug.

The plaintiff in McGee failed.  He alleged that the product manufacturer failed to warn adequately regarding the risk of diabetic ketoacidosis, or “DKA.” McGee, 2018 WL 1399237, at *1.  But the complaint was ambiguous on what the manufacturer knew about that condition and when the manufacturer knew it. Id. It all came down to timing.  The plaintiff alleged that there were reports of DKA before the FDA approved the defendant’s drug, but reports that pre-date drug approval obviously are not “newly acquired” information.  In addition, any allegation that the manufacturer should have alerted the FDA about the DKA risk before approval is a fraud-on-the-FDA claim preempted under Buckman. Id. at *4.

The plaintiff also alleged that the FDA issued a warning with reference to adverse events after the plaintiff allegedly experienced DKA, but “common sense dictates that any information [the manufacturer] obtained after January 17, 2015, when Mr. McGee suffered DKA, is irrelevant to Mr. McGee’s claims because [the manufacturer] could not have used that information to change its label and prevent Mr. McGee’s injury.” Id.

In theory, the plaintiff could have stated a claim with reference to information newly acquired after approval but before he used the product.  “But Mr. McGee lumps together claims and facts from before, during, and after this brief time period” and “[w]ithout clarification, the court cannot tell when Mr. McGee alleges [the manufacturer] had what information.” Id.  Alas, the court granted leave to amend.  But the district court in the Eliquis cases gave the plaintiffs additional chances to plead too, and they were unable to come up with the facts.

The plaintiff in McGee may have similar difficulty.  We know from Eliquis that dumbing down the complaint and making the allegations more vague will not work, and the district court in McGee has already faulted this plaintiff for his imprecise pleadings in any event.  The court had particular distaste for allegations that were “nothing but a useless set of legal conclusions.” Id. at *5.  The court continued:

Worse, the complaint spews these legal conclusion with few supporting facts that would assist [the defendant] in understanding what the company did wrong. This type of “shotgun” pleading fails to plead a cognizable cause of action.  If Mr. McGee chooses to file an amended complaint, he must eliminate the unnecessary and unhelpful “shotgun” assertions and claims.

Id. (citations omitted). These are pretty strong words, but nothing beyond what any court should expect under Rule 8 and TwIqbal.  The takeaway is that the “newly acquired evidence” argument is well-grounded in the law and supported now by substantial precedent.  Moreover, plaintiffs will not always have the facts to get around it.

This post is from the non-Reed Smith side of the blog.

Last week when we posted about some motion in limine rulings coming out of the IVC Filters MDL, most of our blogging team were enjoying a calm week after being hit by two nasty Nor’easters. We were turning our thoughts to spring. Birds chirping, flowers blooming, sunshine and rainbows. Now a week later as we officially head into spring, bam. Here we go again. The predictions vary and it may only be a few more inches of snow, but March has pretty been all lion and we really hoping to see a little lamb in our future. Mother Nature has decided she’s not quite ready to let go of her grasp on winter. Much like the court in the IVC Filter MDL wasn’t quite ready to let go of the bellwether case Jones v. C.R. Bard, Inc, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40020 (D. Ariz. Mar. 12, 2018).

At the heart of the Bard IVC Filters Litigation is an allegation that defendant’s filters have a higher comparative risk rate than other filters and that defendant failed to warn physicians about the higher risk. Id. at *319-20. In the context of this bellwether case set for trial in May, defendant moved for summary judgment on failure to warn, misrepresentation, negligence per se, and punitive damages and won on misrepresentation and negligence per se.

The court was applying Georgia law and therefore the learned intermediary doctrine. Id. at *322-23. Defendant’s first argument was that plaintiff lacked proof of proximate cause on her failure to warn claim because her surgeon testified that he did not read the Eclipse filter label. You all know this argument – even if the defendant had included the very warning plaintiff contends should have been made, it doesn’t matter if the physician wouldn’t have seen it. If the doctor’s testimony is clear, this should shut the door on failure to warn. The court here, however, found a way to prop that door back open by holding that a defendant can breach its duty to warn not only by having a deficient warning but also “by failing to adequately communicate the warning.” Id. at *324. The court looked beyond the label to “dear doctor letters, product pamphlets, and statements by company sales representatives.” Id. at *325. If this is an escape hatch for plaintiffs on failure to warn, then we have more questions for doctors at their depositions.

Defendant’s second argument on failure to warn causation was that the physician was already aware of the very risk which occurred in this case, device fracture – which was also a well-known risk in the medical community. Id. at *326-27. Plaintiff’s countered that the lack warning wasn’t about the general risks of filters but that this particular filter had a higher risk of complication than other filters. On this point, plaintiff’s surgeon testified that higher complication rates is something “he would have wanted to know” before plaintiff’s surgery. That was enough for the court to find a jury question as to prior surgeon knowledge. Id. at *328.

Taking these two rulings together serves to emphasize the critical importance of the physician’s deposition. This court wanted “unequivocal” evidence that the doctor would have made the same prescribing or surgical decision even in the face of different warning information. Id. at *328-29. Only such a response would have cutoff causation with regard to any avenue by which the defendant could have communicated warnings to the surgeon. It’s a risk to ask the ultimate question – would a different warning have mattered – but without it, the risk is a disputed fact issue for the jury.

The court turned next to the adequacy of the warning provided, which it was undisputed did contain a warning regarding fractures. But as noted above, did not contain information about the comparative risk rates for this filter as against other filters. Id. at *330-31. We had the same gut reaction that defendant in this case appears to have had – 1) how can you possibly provide reliable information comparing risks among products and 2) is this even allowed by the FDA. Id. at *334. It’s not for prescription drugs. See 21 C.F.R. §201.57(c)(7)(iii) (“For drug products . . . any claim comparing the drug . . .with other drugs in terms of frequency, severity, or character of adverse reactions must be based on adequate and well-controlled studies.”). But the same logic should apply. Unless the adverse reactions or complications being discussed have been studied side-by-side to account for variables and assorted other unknowns, the comparison is meaningless and potentially more harmful than helpful. It’s one thing to suggest that the label warning of the risk of fractures was insufficient given the state of knowledge defendant had or should have had at the time, but finding that a defendant could be liable for breaching its duty to warn for failing to provide comparative risk rates that are unverified, unapproved, and inherently unreliable puts a defendant in a really precarious position. Don’t include and face tort liability; include a face FDA violations for misbranding and misleading information.

Moving on to the two claims that were dismissed – misrepresentation and negligence per se. The court found that Georgia does not recognize an independent claim for misrepresentation in a products liability case. It is subsumed in failure to warn. Id. at *336-37. Similarly, plaintiffs could not maintain a negligence per se claim based on alleged FDCA violations because there is no private right of action to enforce the Act. The court’s preemption analysis is emphatic and strongly reasoned. Id. at *338-40. Plaintiff’s attempt to sidetrack the court with talk of the difference between PMA and 510(k) devices falls on deaf ears, as it should when talking about Buckman implied preemption. Id. at *340-41. As did plaintiff’s attempt to argue that Georgia allows negligence per se claims based on laws that do not create a private right of action. The difference between those laws and the FDCA is “the plain language of §337(a) and the Buckman decision indicate that, where the FDCA is concerned, such [a] claim fails.” Id. at *341.

Finally, the court also allowed plaintiff to keep her punitive damages claim based on a design claim that was not otherwise part of the motion. The discussion focuses on the state of the evidence regarding what defendant knew and when and what actions it took regarding the design of the device at issue. It is fairly case specific and so we won’t delve into the details here.

Not a banner decision and frankly it raises more questions than it answers about warnings based on comparative risk rates. Hmm, perhaps a deeper dive and a subsequent post is in order. Something for the next snowy day.

 

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.

The Seventh Circuit taught us recently that the letter “A” is a powerful thing. Of course, we already knew that a well-placed A can convert the ordinary (“typical”) into the extraordinary (“atypical”), the melodic (“tonal”) into the dissonant (“atonal”), and the virtuous (“moral”) into the indifferent (“amoral”).  Adding a single A to a Scrabble board can result in a seriously high-value word, provided you can manage to place it on a triple word score appended to a word that already has high value letters, like H or Y, or if you are really lucky, X.

For today, A stands for “Abbreviated”—as in Abbreviated New Drug Application, or ANDA. It’s important because the Seventh Circuit held in Guilbeau v. Pfizer, Inc., No. 17-2056, 2018 WL 476343 (7th Cir. Jan. 19, 2018), that implied preemption of a failure-to-warn claim under Pliva v. Mensing depends not on a drug’s colloquial description as “generic” or “brand name,” but rather on the nature of the drug’s approval process.  If a drug is approved through an ANDA, federal regulation of drug labeling preempts state-law failure to warn claims—even if the drug is technically the “Reference Listed Drug.”

This ruling makes perfect sense, and here is how it works. In Guilbeau, the plaintiffs alleged that manufacturers of a testosterone replacement therapy product called Depo-T failed adequately to warn regarding cardiovascular events. Id. at *1.  Depo-T, however, had a slightly unusual regulatory history.  When a manufacturer applies for drug approval under an ANDA, it has to demonstrate that the drug has the same active ingredients, effects, and labeling as a predecessor drug that the FDA has already approved. Id. at *2.  The predecessor drug is called the Reference Listed Drug. Id.

The Reference Listed Drug is usually the innovator product, approved through the NDA process and often referred to as a “brand-name” drug. The ANDA drug is often called “generic.”  If, however, an original innovator drug has been discontinued, the FDA can designate the remaining market-leading drug to take its place as the Reference Listed Drug. Id. Something like that (but not exactly) happened to Depo-T.  Because of unique circumstances surrounding the timing of the drug’s approval, the FDA classified Depo-T as an ANDA-approved drug, but the product also was designated the Reference Listed Drug for its kind of testosterone injection. Id. at *4.

So which is it? “Generic” or “brand name”?  It turns out those terms are neither useful nor dispositive when applying implied preemption.  Or, as the Seventh Circuit observed, “These colloquial terms are not quite precise enough for our purposes in this case.” Id.  The relevant distinction is NDA-approved versus ANDA-approved.  That distinction determines whether a drug manufacturer can unilaterally update its labeling through the changes being effected (or “CBE”) process and thus potentially lose the protection of implied preemption recognized in Pliva v. Mensing.  The Seventh Circuit explained it this way:

[D]espite potentially confusing references to brand-name and generic drugs—recall that the relevant FDA terms are NDA-approved and ANDA-approved—Mensing itself unambiguously refers to the lines drawn in the drug approval process as determining access to the CBE regulation. Mensing concludes that while NDA holders may use the CBE regulation to add warnings, ANDA holders (like [the manufacturer] here) may not. . . .

Despite their occasional use of these terms, the Supreme Court, Congress, and the FDA all agree that the meaningful difference is found in approval process classifications, not shorthand terms like brand-name and generic.

Id. at *6. The key point for the Seventh Circuit was that the CBE regulation is unavailable for products approved through the ANDA process.  And that goes for every ANDA product, even if it is the Reference Listed Drug—like Depo-T.  Because ANDA product manufacturers cannot change their labels unilaterally, it is impossible to change a label in response to state tort law without violating the federal duty of “sameness” that applies to all ANDA products.  That is Pliva v. Mensing implied preemption. Id. at **4-5.

The Guilbeau plaintiffs tried to avoid preemption by arguing that, because Depo-T was itself the Reference Listed Drug, the manufacturer’s duty was to have labeling the same as its own labeling.  According to the plaintiffs, that means the manufacturer could change the label all it wanted to and it would still be the “same” as itself. Id. at *5.  We appreciate the metaphysical nature of this argument:  How can something ever be different from itself?  But the answer is pretty easy.  The duty of “sameness” means that ANDA holders must match the labeling for the Reference Listed Drug as approved by the FDA, “not whatever the RLD’s manufacturer currently thinks would be best.”  Id. at *7.  In other words, “The statutes, the regulations, and the Mensing opinion do not draw the distinction plaintiffs advocate:  a difference in abilities and responsibilities between RLD ANDA holders and other ANDA holders.” Id.

In the end, ANDA drugs that are also Reference Listed Drugs are subject to a “duty of sameness indistinguishable from that of all other ANDA drugs.” Id. at *8.  They all must show that their labeling is the same as the approved labeling. Id. Thus, because Depo-T’s manufacturer “may not unilaterally change the FDA-approved language on Depo-T’s label,” a lawsuit under state law that seeks damages for the manufacturer’s failure to do so is preempted by federal law. Id.

One more important note: The Seventh Circuit held that the plaintiffs were not entitled to conduct further discovery.  The district court decided this case on a motion to dismiss, and because “preemption is a legal question for determination by courts . . . , discovery of facts may not be as vital to this inquiry as it could be to others.” Id. at *10.  With recent opinions from the Third Circuit and Ninth Circuit treating preemption as a factual issue on which discovery might be appropriate (discussed here  and here), the Seventh Circuit’s holding on discovery is most welcome.  Preemption can and should be decided on the pleadings in many instances, including the circumstances presented here.  The district court in Guilbeau correctly did exactly that, and the Seventh Circuit gave the order an A grade.

This year’s Academy Award nominations came out last week. That means that we have spent the past few days setting a schedule for seeing all of the Best Picture nominees (well, most – we don’t do war movies and tend to opt out of love stories involving semi-animate objects) and scouring recipe blogs for perfect Oscar party buffet items.  We have also reminisced, with amusement, about the climactic moments of last year’s show, during which the presenters announced the wrong Best Picture winner before an Academy official shoved them out of the way and corrected the error.  As we recall, it turned out (not surprisingly) that the mistake was caused by sloppiness.  The Academy’s accountant handed the presenters a duplicate envelope for an award that had already been presented, starting the embarrassing domino cascade.  We recall that heads rolled in the ensuing days.

Today’s case also involves the consequences of sloppiness, along with a couple of interesting legal rulings. In its unpublished decision in Small v. Amgen, Inc., et al., 2018 WL 501354 (11th Cir. Jan 22, 2018), the Eleventh Circuit considered the plaintiff’s appeal of two summary judgment orders:  a grant of partial summary judgment for the defendants, and a later grant of summary judgment on all of the remaining claims.

The plaintiff was prescribed the defendants’ drug to treat her rheumatoid arthritis. She took the drug for nearly six years then suffered a perforated bowel and a diverticulitis infection, for which she underwent multiple surgeries.  She sued the drug’s manufacturers, asserting all of the usual claims. In 2014, the district court granted summary judgment on the plaintiff’s failure-to-warn claims, holding that Florida’s learned intermediary doctrine precluded the claims.  Later, when the plaintiff’s expert disclosures revealed her sloppy omissions — although she identified five treating physicians she intended to use as non-retained experts, she had no expert to testify to general or specific causation — the defendants moved for summary judgment on the plaintiff’s remaining claims.  In 2017, the district court granted the defendants’ motion.

On appeal, the plaintiff did not dispute or even address the 2017 summary judgment order. Instead, she argued that the 2014 dismissal of her warnings claims was improper because there were factual issues “regarding the district court’s treatment of [her prescriber] as a learned intermediary.” Small, 2018 WL 501354 at *2.  She also argued that “the district court incorrectly decided that the direct ‘patient labeling requirement’ in the FDA medication guidelines did not preempt Florida’s learned intermediary doctrine.” Id.

With respect to the prescriber-as-learned-intermediary argument, the court explained that the plaintiff’s prescribing physician had 22 years of experience in rheumatology and “intentionally selected [the drug] for [the plaintiff], despite the risk of possible infections, because other forms of rheumatoid arthritis therapy had failed.” Id. What’s more, the prescriber was involved in clinical trials with the drug, and the plaintiff was a participant, giving the prescriber “more reason to know of and discuss possible side-effects or concerns” associated with the drug.” Id. The prescriber “knew that infections were possible but prescribed the drug anyway . . . because the benefits outweighed the risks.” Id. As such, because “the prescribing physician had substantially the same knowledge as an adequate warning from the manufacturer should have communicated,” the plaintiff could not prove warnings causation and her warnings claims failed as a matter of law. Id. (internal punctuation and citation omitted).   In other words, “the failure of the manufacturer to provide the physician with an adequate warning . . . is not the proximate cause of a patient’s injury if the prescribing physician had independent knowledge of the risk that the adequate warning should have communicated.” Id. (citation omitted).

Next, the plaintiff argued that Florida’s learned intermediary doctrine was preempted by the FDA’s requirement that the manufacturers provide patients with a “medication guide” for the drug. The court emphasized that “the historic police powers of the State [were] not superseded unless that was the clear and manifest purpose of Congress.” Id. at *3 (internal punctuation and citation omitted).   To discern such “clear and manifest purpose” in cases of implied preemption, the court explained that it considered “the promulgating agency’s contemporaneous explanation of its objectives as well as the agency’s current views of the regulation’s preemptive effect.” Id. (internal punctuation and citation omitted).

In the case of the medication guide regulation, the FDA had specifically addressed concerns that the regulation would alter the framework for manufacturers’ liability by abrogating the learned intermediary doctrine.  In response, the agency stated that “the written patient medication information provided did not alter the duty, or set the standard of care for, manufacturers [or] physicians . . . .” Id. (citation omitted).   Given this “contemporaneous explanation” from the FDA, coupled with the reality that “courts have not recognized an exception to the learned intermediary defense in situations where the FDA has required patient labeling . . . ,” the court held that there was no preemption.  We love this holding, and we believe this is the first time that an appellate court has so held.

No preemption, no warnings causation – summary judgment on warnings claims affirmed. And, because the plaintiff did not address her inexplicable failure to identify causation experts, the court held that she had waived any appeal of the 2017 summary judgment order.   Case (tidily) dismissed, in a no-nonsense decision we like very much.  We’ll let you know if we are similarly pleased by this year’s Oscars.

We reported two weeks ago on an order favoring implied preemption in an innovator prescription drug case coming out of the Eliquis MDL in New York.  One week after that order, the Ninth Circuit filed an unpublished opinion reversing an order from the In re Incretin-Based Therapies MDL in the Southern District of California that similarly favored implied preemption.  With these recent events, it is tempting to construct an east-versus-west narrative around federal preemption, but the cases don’t really line up that way (see, e.g., the very eastern Fosamax opinion from the Third Circuit, discussed in detail here, here, and here).  Still, when we saw the recent preemption juxtaposition of California against New York, we could not help but think of the 1977 World Series, with Reggie Jackson hitting home runs by the handful to lead the Yankees over the Dodgers.  You have the Brooklyn Bridge versus the Golden Gate.  Broadway versus Hollywood.  Letterman versus Leno.  We are told that the Los Angeles Kings recently played the New York Rangers in the ice hockey Stanley Cup finals, but if that actually occurred, we overlooked it.

Of course, one thing that New York and California have in common is that they both cast their electoral votes in the 2016 presidential election for a candidate that did not win. At least New York has the consolation that both major-party candidates hailed from New York, a situation that has not occurred since Franklin Roosevelt defeated Manhattan attorney Thomas Dewey in 1944.  We do not believe there has ever been a New York versus California presidential election, but we have not looked it up.  Bexis points out that one of FDR’s general election opponents was Herbert Hoover, who relocated from Iowa to California, so we guess that counts.  California Governor Ronald Reagan and New York Senator Robert Kennedy both sought their parties’ nominations in 1968, but neither prevailed.  We can only imagine what kind of general election that would have been.

When it comes to federal preemption, we would not have cast our vote for the Ninth Circuit’s unpublished opinion in In re Incretin-Based Therapies Products Liability Litigation, No. 15-56997, 2017 WL 6030735 (9th Cir. Dec. 6, 2017).  The plaintiffs in In re Incretin claim that the defendants did not adequately warn about the risk of pancreatic cancer in connection with their prescription diabetes drugs.  The FDA, however, has said on multiple occasions that a causal association between the drugs and pancreatic cancer is indeterminate.  The district court therefore granted summary judgment on the basis that the defendants had presented “clear evidence” under Wyeth v. Levine that the FDA would not have approved a change to the drug labeling regarding that particular risk.  We reported on that order here and its California state-court counterpart here.

Well, the Ninth Circuit has undone the district court’s order, at least for now. Maybe the most important part of the opinion is what the Ninth Circuit did not do, which is rule on whether the defendants had or had not satisfied the “clear evidence” standard.  Instead, the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded because the district court (1) improperly limited discovery and (2) did not consider certain “newly discovered evidence” when it granted summary judgment. In re Incretin, at *1.

Here is how it played out. On the discovery issue, the plaintiffs sought additional discovery into adverse event source documents and databases.  The district court, however, denied that request because adverse event reporting, including what was reported to the FDA and what was not, was irrelevant under Buckman Co. v. Plaintiffs’ Legal Committee, 531 U.S. 341 (2001). See In re Incretin, at *1.  As our readers know, Buckman held that federal law impliedly preempts any claim for “fraud on the FDA.”

The Ninth Circuit saw it differently and held that the plaintiffs were not seeking discovery under a “fraud on the FDA” theory, but instead were pursuing a routine state-law failure-to-warn claim such as in Stengel.  That’s the case where the Ninth Circuit held that a plaintiff could plead a non-preempted “parallel claim” based on allegations that the defendant failed to report adverse events to the FDA, an opinion that came in second on our “Worst Ten” list for 2013.  According to the Ninth Circuit, the sought-after information was relevant to whether there was a causal connection between the products and pancreatic cancer, and preemption could not be determined “without knowing what information was available to the defendants.” Id. at *2.

The purported “newly discovered evidence” was an assessment completed by Canadian regulators and “evidence from animal studies and clinical trials” somehow involving pancreatic cancer. Id. at *3.  The Ninth Circuit held that the district court had improperly failed to consider this evidence, even after acknowledging that it remained “unclear whether the FDA considered this information, and if it did not, whether this data would have altered the FDA’s conclusion.” Id. (quoting district court’s order).  In the Ninth Circuit’s view, uncertainty on whether the “newly discovered evidence” would have been material to the FDA’s opinion on pancreatic cancer should have prevented summary judgment on the defendant’s implied preemption defense. Id.

So the case is headed back to the district court for litigation on the scope of discovery and presumably another motion for summary judgment. Because the Ninth Circuit left undisturbed the district court’s core ruling under the “clear evidence” standard, the result on remand could very well be the same.

Be that as it may, we find the Ninth Circuit’s opinion questionable. For one thing, the whole thing underplays Buckman and overplays Stengel.  Of course, any play on Stengel is an overplay because the opinion was wrongly decided.  A state-law duty to inform physicians of the known and knowable risks of prescription drugs does not equate to a state-law duty to report information to a federal government agency.  And without the latter duty, it is beyond us how a claim for failing to report adverse event information to the FDA does not exist solely by virtue of a federal enactment.  That is Buckman preemption, yet the Ninth Circuit has again invoked a supposed “duty to report” to allow not only a claim, but now discovery.

We also question the Ninth Circuit’s reasoning on the “newly discovered evidence” and the purported disputes of fact. The FDA’s position on incretin-based therapies and pancreatic cancer was undisputed—the causal connection was indeterminate.  The potential dispute apparently is over whether the FDA considered the plaintiffs’ information and whether it would have altered the FDA’s opinion.  But if that dispute exists, is it really material?  If defendant can present “clear evidence” that the FDA would not approve the plaintiffs’ proposed warning based on the FDA’s own statements and actions, are we now in the business of second-guessing the FDA’s judgment by sifting through what the FDA has considered and what it has not?  Are juries to engage in that review process based on the opinions of dueling regulatory experts?  That is the main problem with the Third Circuit’s opinion in Fosamax, which takes a legal issue (preemption) and the Supreme Court’s “clear evidence” standard and converts them into factual issues for juries to decide under a “clear and convincing evidence” standard never before enunciated in this context.

Most pointedly, there typically is no discovery directly into the FDA’s decision making process. As a result, when the Ninth Circuit suggests that the district court should have considered “whether the FDA considered this information” and whether it “would have altered” anything, the court is really asking by proxy whether the defendants made the information available to the FDA for consideration in the first place.  In other words, the Incretin plaintiffs were seeking to undermine the FDA’s stated position by questioning, at least in part, what the defendants did and did not submit to the FDA.  That comes full circle to Buckman, and the district court had a valid point when it ruled that a “reevaluation of scientific data or a judicial challenge to the accuracy of the FDA’s conclusions would disrupt the ‘delicate balance of statutory objectives’ the Buckman Court sought to preserve.” In re Incretin-Based Therapies Prods. Liab. Litig., 142 F. Supp. 3d 1108, 1130 (S.D. Cal. 2015) (quoting Buckman, 531 U.S. at 351), rev’d.

As we mentioned at the outset, the summary judgment order is reversed for now, but the result in the end could be the same. As fans of California, let’s hope that is the case.  As every sports fan has said at some point in his or her life, there is always next year.

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.