With PLIVA, Inc. v. Mensing, 564 U.S. 604 (2011), and Mutual Pharmaceutical Co. v. Bartlett, 133 S. Ct. 2466 (2013), preemption arguments in cases involving generic prescription drugs has become a little like shooting fish in a barrel, as our generic preemption scorecard documents.  Still, that’s no reason not to praise good results.  Recently, the manufacturers of generic amiodarone scored two big wins on the same day.  Moore v. Zydus Pharmaceuticals (USA), Inc., ___ F. Supp.3d ___, 2017 WL 4365162 (E.D. Ky. Sept. 29, 2017); Bean v. Upsher-Smith Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 2017 WL 4348330 (D.S.C. Sept. 29, 2017).  Moore, which is headed for F. Supp. publication, is the more comprehensive case, so we’ll start with it.

The plaintiffs’ pitch, such as it is, in these cases is that the generic defendants either piggybacked on the branded manufacturer’s earlier off-label promotion or else engaged in such promotion themselves.  Secondarily, they claim that they didn’t receive the medication guide that the FDA requires manufacturers of this product to provide to prescribing physicians.  Somehow, the failure of the prescriber to pass along this pamphlet is the manufacturer’s fault.

Didn’t work (mostly) in Moore.  As for the off-label promotion allegations, they were barred – as other information-related claims involving generic products are barred – because “the generic drug manufacturer could not change its labeling without violating FDA regulations.”  Moore, 2017 WL 4365162, at *3 (citing Mensing).  Further, the entire concept of “off-label” is derived from the FDA-approved label, and thus from the Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act (“FDCA”).  Id. at*7.  Plaintiff’s attempt to gin up a state-law negligence claim based on this alleged conduct ran straight into a quirk of Kentucky law that we’ve blogged about before:  Kentucky, by statute, prohibits negligence per se claims based on violations of federal law.

The Kentucky Supreme Court’s holding in T & M Jewelry, Inc. v. Hicks ex rel. Hicks, 189 S.W.3d 526, 530 (Ky. 2006) offers binding and unequivocal precedent concerning the scope of KRS 446.070 and demonstrates that [plaintiff] does not have a state based right to sue for negligence in this matter.

*          *          *          *

Under Kentucky law and the Kentucky Supreme Court’s analysis of KRS 446.070, which codifies the doctrine of negligence per se, . . . the statute “did not intend for KRS 446.070 to … confer a private civil remedy for” violations of federal law.

Moore, 2017 WL 4365162, at *7-8.  Aside from the off-label aspect, all warning claims were preempted under Mensing.  Id. at *8-9.  Plaintiff did not allege design- or manufacturing-related claims.  Id. at *8.

As for the purported failure to supply the FDA-mandated medication guide, that was something that the plaintiff simply made up.  Kentucky, like every other state, follows the learned intermediary rule.  Id. at *6.  The manufacturer thus has no obligation, “non-delegable” or otherwise, to communicate warnings directly to a patient who has been prescribed a drug.  Id.  Because there is no such state-law duty, any obligation to supply medication guides was imposed solely by the FDCA.  The FDCA, however, “leaves no doubt that it is the Federal Government rather than private litigants who are authorized to file suit for noncompliance.”  Id. at *5 (quoting Buckman Co. v. Plaintiffs Legal Committee, 531 U.S. 341, 349 n.4 (2001)).

Since [plaintiff’s] claim concerning receipt of the medication guide exists exclusively due to the federal regulatory scheme, her claim must fail as the cause of action is merely based upon alleged violation of the FDCA and it is the FDA, not [plaintiff], that “has at its disposal a variety of enforcement options that allow it to make a measured response to suspected fraud upon the Administration.”

Id. (again quoting Buckman, 531 U.S. at 349).

Implied warranty claims were preempted for the same reasons as negligence and strict liability claims.  Id. at *9.  Express warranty claims failed because there was nothing the “explicitly warranted” the drug’s safety for the off-label use in question.  Id. at *10.  Without any express language, the warranty claim was simply a doomed repackaging of plaintiff’s preempted warning claim.  Id. at *11.

The only claim that could conceivably survive preemption in Moore was a fraud claim based on false off-label promotion.  As we’ve seen numerous times in PMA preemption, while every other aspect of off-label promotion was protected by preemption, an allegation that was both false and an FDCA violation could survive – if a plaintiff ever properly pleaded it.  The plaintiff in Moore didn’t come close:

The majority of the complaint fails to specify actions undertaken by [defendant] and instead conflates accusations of wrongdoing against the two originally named “Defendants.”  Instead of providing specific details concerning when the wrongful conduct took place, the Complaint alleges that the “Defendants’ scheme in the past involved and continues to involve a calculated and deceitful sales campaign. . . .”

Id. at 12.  The complaint was such a mess that “it is unclear whether providing [plaintiff] with an opportunity to amend her complaint would be futile.”  Id.  The court decided to give her one more shot.  Id.

The second preemption win, Bean, 2017 WL 4348330, was mostly along the same lines, except that, being from South Carolina, the Kentucky quirk on negligence per se wasn’t at issue.  The plaintiff made same the allegations about off-label promotion and medication guides.  Id. at *1-4.  The court was even firmer about preemption, not allowing any loophole for “fraudulent” off-label promotion:

Plaintiff’s “off-label” promotion claims are due to be dismissed as preempted under Mensing and Bartlett. . . .   The basis for Plaintiff’s “off-label” marketing claim is that Defendants, by virtue of their marketing of [the drug off-label], rendered the manufacturer’s warning inadequate.  Defendants are prohibited by the FDCA and FDA regulations from adding or strengthening any warnings for [the drug] to address any risks associated with off-label use.  If successful, Plaintiff’s “off-label” promotion claims would necessarily require Defendants to either: 1) change the warning label or disseminate additional warnings to reflect the alleged additional dangers associated with the “off-label” use of amiodarone for atrial fibrillation; 2) accept state tort liability; or 3) exit the market place. . . .  [S]uch a result requires preemption under Mensing and Bartlett.  Plaintiff’s “off-label” promotion claims, whether sounding in fraud or negligence, are preempted by the FDCA.

Id. at *5.

Also, as in Moore, the medication guide allegations were preempted as private FDCA enforcement under Buckman.  2017 WL 4348330, at *6-7.  Plaintiff didn’t even respond to Buckman, which the court found particularly “telling. Id.; see id. at *7 (“the requirement to provide a Medication Guide to distributors is based solely in the requirements of the FDCA and related regulations”).  The learned intermediary rule, which South Carolina follows, precluded any state-law liability for failing to provide warnings directly to a patient . Id. at *8.  Buckman also did in the off-label promotion claims, because the court found no state-law obligation to avoid off-label promotion.  “[T]he duties Plaintiff alleges Defendants breached regarding ‘off-label’ promotion exist solely under the FDCA.”  Id. at *7.

The court in Bean was particularly unhappy with both plaintiffs’ allegations and with her counsel.  The allegations were inherently inconsistent, because by alleging that the medication guide contained “adequate and sufficient” warnings, the plaintiff necessarily defeated her own allegations.  “Plaintiff does not allege that the prescribing physician did not receive the Medication Guide, was unaware of its contents, or the risk [the guide discussed].”  Id. at *8.  These allegations weren’t “plausible on [their] face” under TwIqbal, because the prescriber received “adequate” warnings.  Id.  As for counsel:

Plaintiff’s failure to respond to the learned intermediary argument is striking because Plaintiff’s counsel has been involved in several other amiodarone cases that were dismissed in part pursuant to the learned intermediary doctrine.

Id. at *7 n.4 (string citation omitted).  Thus, the plaintiff in Bean, unlike the plaintiff in Moore, didn’t deserve – and didn’t get – any chance  to replead.  Id. at *8.

One thing that Moore and Bean exemplify to us is how preemption principles cut across product lines.  As we’ve chronicled, much of the favorable law as to off-label promotion was developed in the context of PMA preemption.  Buckman, of course, was an implied preemption case involving a 510(k) medical device.  Both Moore and Bean employed this precedent to dismiss claims involving generic drugs.  In view of this cross-pollination of defense arguments in preemption cases, we offer one final opportunity for improvement.  As we blogged about at length here, there is an additional Mensing/Bartlett preemption argument whenever off-label warning claims are asserted.  Only the FDA can require warnings about off-label uses.

A specific warning relating to a use not provided for under the “Indications and Usage” section may be required by FDA in accordance with sections 201(n) and 502(a) of the act if the drug is commonly prescribed for a disease or condition and such usage is associated with a clinically significant risk or hazard.

21 C.F.R. §201.57(c)(6)(i) (emphasis added).  See also 21 C.F.R. §201.80(e).   Thus, regardless of anything else, a manufacturer cannot add or alter warnings related to off-label uses without first getting the go ahead from the FDA.  In and of itself, that requires preemption of off-label warning claims under Mensing/Bartlett.  For more details, see the other post.

A defense win anywhere helps defendants everywhere.  Keep winning.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In our post earlier this week “No Causation, No ‘Parallel Claim’” we examined the enormous causation hurdle plaintiffs face in trying to prove a Stengel or Hughes type failure to warn claim in those jurisdictions where such a claim has been found not to be preempted. In that post, we commented that we “would have preferred an order finding the failure-to-warn claims preempted.” Well today, we bring you two that do just that. The first a complete preemption win, the other only a partial, but we’ll start with the good news.

Both Golden v. Brown, Case # 17CV30568, slip op. (Colo. Dist. Ct. Sep. 24, 2017) and Norabuena v. Medtronic, Inc., 2017 Ill. App. LEXIS 593 (Ill. App. Sep. 20, 2017) refused to recognize a failure to warn claim premised on a failure to report adverse events to the FDA – a Stengel claim if you’re in the Ninth Circuit and a Hughes claim if you’re in the Fifth. Now neither Colorado nor Illinois is in those circuits, but we’d like to think that regardless these state courts would have reached the same conclusion they did – neither Colorado nor Illinois law recognizes a claim for failure to warn the FDA. So, plaintiff can allege defendant violated a federal regulation by failing provide information to the FDA – but it isn’t “parallel” to any state law claim because there is no such state law claim. The Illinois appellate court summed it up nicely:

[A]lthough plaintiffs have identified a federal requirement that their complaint alleges Medtronic violated, there is no Illinois requirement that parallels it. Plaintiffs asserted claims for failure to warn. Although Illinois recognizes that a manufacturer may satisfy its duty to warn by conveying information to third-party learned intermediaries, this is not synonymous with an affirmative duty to warn a federal regulatory body. The learned intermediary doctrine states that a manufacturer has a duty to warn prescribing physicians of a drug’s known dangerous propensities” under the understanding that those physicians will use their expert knowledge in adequately warning the patient. We cannot find that this duty is parallel to the federal requirement.

Norabuena, 2017 Ill. App. LEXIS 593 at **14. The Colorado court not only found that allegations of failure to report adverse events to the FDA don’t state a parallel claim, but also concluded that Stengel and Hughes “cannot be reconciled with 21 U.S.C. §360k(a) as interpreted in Riegel or 21 U.S.C. §337(a) as interpreted in Buckman.” Golden, slip op. at 3. In other words, failure to warn a learned intermediary is different from and in addition to federal requirements regarding reporting of adverse events and a claim for failure to provide information to the FDA is an improper attempt at private enforcement of the FDCA. Just what we’ve been saying since these two awful decisions came down.

Both decisions have a little more to discuss.

In Golden, plaintiff also attempted to base a parallel claim on alleged violations of Current Good Manufacturing Processes (“CGMPs”). Noting that it was joining the majority of courts to have considered the issue, the court ruled that the CGMPs are too “vague” and “open-ended” to serve as a basis for a parallel claim. Id. at 2. The court also found plaintiff’s breach of implied warranty of merchantability claim preempted as essentially an allegation that the device was not safe and effective which would directly contradict the FDA’s PMA decision that “there is a reasonable assurance of . . . safety and effectiveness” and therefore expressly preempted. Id. at 3. And finally, the court found plaintiff’s claims impliedly preempted because plaintiff failed to explain “how Defendant’s conduct violated state law duties absent the FDCA.” Id. Simply stating that her claims were premised on Colorado common law was insufficient – “true merely in title, not substance.” Id. Instead, plaintiff’s claim exist solely under the FDCA which is not allowed.

The Golden case also suffered from some pleadings defects, such as failure to allege facts to support either a defect or causation. Id. at 2. But even if those pleading deficiencies could be cured, none of plaintiff’s claims survived preemption, so the case was dismissed in its entirety.

Switching gears to Illinois – unfortunately the court ruled that one of the bases for plaintiff’s failure to warn claim was not preempted. The FDCA contains regulations against device misbranding, which includes advertising that is false and misleading. Norabuena, 2017 Ill. App. LEXIS 593 at **15. Plaintiff alleged that defendant’s advertising was false and misleading in that it concealed known risks of using the device in an off-label manner. Id. at **16. In reaching its conclusion, the court distinguished plaintiff’s claim as not an attack on the device’s label which would be preempted as having been specifically approved by the FDA during the PMA process. But rather, plaintiff was challenging allegedly deceptive marketing practices post pre-market approval. Id. at **17. But that is a distinction without a difference where plaintiff’s allegation is that in its advertising defendant should have included a warning different from or in addition to the warning the FDA approved. The FDA-approved warning is what must accompany product advertising. Think about what the court is saying – if the warning is in the product label it must adhere to the FDA-approved language. If the warning accompanies an advertisement for the product it does not. We do not believe that is something the FDA would allow. While we can understand how a court can find that a false statement made in product promotion may be both a violation of state law and FDCA misbranding regulations, where that falsity is alleged to be a failure to include a warning not approved by the FDA, we respectfully disagree.

But, all is not lost in Norabuena. The appellate court found that plaintiff’s claims were properly dismissed on another ground – failure to plead causation. The complaint apparently was replete with allegations of “omitted” risks, “[h]owever, there are no specific factual allegations in the complaint asserting that [plaintiff’s] surgeon encountered or relied on any of the asserted promotional marketing.” Id. at **21. If a tree falls in the woods. . . . It’s not enough to plead the act or omission, the complaint was also allege facts supporting proximate cause. This pleading deficiency wasn’t enough for a dismissal with prejudice, so the case is heading back to the trial court and plaintiff will have to re-plead her remaining failure to warn claim.

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Finally, some good news out of California – at least when personal jurisdiction isn’t the issue.

Design and warning defects were the questions presented in Trejo v. Johnson & Johnson, ___ Cal. Rptr.3d ___, 2017 WL 2825803 (Cal. App. June 30, 2017), and the result, particularly on the design side, was much more to our liking.

Indeed, there may well not have been post-BMS personal jurisdiction in Trejo either, since the plaintiffs were Hondurans injured in Honduras.  It’s not clear from the opinion where the drug at issue – an over-the-counter (“OTC”) ibuprofen-based pain relief medication – was purchased.  Somewhere in the United States, we gather, and it was then sent as a “care package” to the purchaser’s Honduran relatives.  Trejo, 2017 WL 2825803, at *2.

The drug was eventually taken, in Honduras, by someone other than its intended user, and that person, the eventual plaintiff, subsequently suffered Stevens-Johnson Syndrome (“SJS”), a nasty condition that we’ve encountered frequently on this blog.  This particular exercise in litigation tourism was quite initially successful.  A jury awarded over $50 million (including $15 million in punitive damages), finding for plaintiff on negligent failure to warn, negligent design, and strict liability design defect under the so-called “consumer expectation” test and the risk-benefit test.  The defendant “won” (if you could call it that) on strict liability warning defect and design defect under the “risk/utility” test. Id. at *5.  California not only allows plaintiffs two bites at the warning apple on separate negligence and strict liability theories, but three bites at the design apple under separate negligence, strict liability/consumer expectation design defect, and strict liability/risk/utility design defect theories.  No wonder plaintiffs flock to the state.

On appeal, however, the plaintiff in Trejo lost it all.

The design defect rulings are the most significant for the rest of us.

First, Trejo becomes the fourth appellate court to hold that the impossibility preemption rationale of Mutual Pharmaceutical Co. v. Bartlett, 133 S.Ct. 2466 (2013), and PLIVA, Inc. v. Mensing, 564 U.S. 604 (2011), applies generally, and it not limited to generic drugs – the others being Sikkelee v. Precision Airmotive Corp., 822 F.3d 680, 703-04 (3d Cir. 2016) (airplanes); Yates v. Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 808 F.3d 281, 298 (6th Cir., 2015) (branded drugs), and In re Celexa & Lexapro Marketing & Sales Practices Litigation, 779 F.3d 34, 41 (1st Cir. 2015) (branded drugs). Trejo joins Sikkelee and Yates in applying Mensing/Bartlett to design defects.  And Trejo is the first appellate decision to apply Mensing/Bartlett specifically to OTC drugs.

This is a good direction for the law to be moving. No appellate court has held that Mensing/Bartlett is limited to design defects in generic drugs.

Here’s what the unanimous Second District Cal. App. panel in Trejo had to say about preemption:

While the FDCA contains an express preemption provision concerning OTC drugs (21 U.S.C. §379r) – with a great big exception that exempts “product liability” claims from preemption – express and implied preemption operate independently.  Thus the savings clause for “product liability” doesn’t preclude implied preemption where product liability claims are in conflict with federal law.  Trejo, 2017 WL 2825803, at *23 (“[t]he savings clause does not foreclose the possibility that conflict preemption may arise from federal sources other than . . . §379r”).

Plaintiff’s design defect claim was that the defendant shouldn’t have used ibuprofen at all, but rather dexibuprofen, an isomer of the drug in question, “even though the FDA has not approved dexibuprofen for sale in the United States.” Id. at *5.  That’s right – plaintiff articulated a blatant stop-selling claim of the sort Bartlett had held preempted, and the Court of Appeal called “barnyard expletive” on plaintiff’s tortured argument otherwise:

[Plaintiff] asserts that he did not argue that defendants “should have withdrawn [the drug] from the marketplace, or should have never sold it in the first place.”  This argument is merely a matter of semantics. No matter how plaintiff words his argument, the claim that defendants failed to sell dexibuprofen instead of ibuprofen requires the claim that defendants should have withdrawn [the drug] from the market because defendants could not have changed the active ingredient of [the drug] without undergoing an entirely new FDA drug application process.

Trejo, 2017 WL 2825803, at *21 n.20 (emphasis added).

The Bartlettindependence principle” also required preemption.  It was impossible for the defendant to do what plaintiff contended state law required (materially change the drug’s design) immediately because material design changes to OTC (and all) drugs (and medical devices) require the prior review by and approval of the FDA.  “[F]ederal law prohibited the manufacturer from taking the remedial action required to avoid liability under [state] law.”  Trejo, 2017 WL 2825803, at *25 (quoting Bartlett, 133 S. Ct. at 2476).  That ruling applied to all drugs:

Consistent with our conclusion that the savings clause . . . does not prevent the applicability of ordinary preemption principles in the nonprescription drug context, we agree . . . that Bartlett’s holding is not limited to prescription drugs.

Trejo, 2017 WL 2825803, at *25 (emphasis added).  The FDCA did not permit the defendant to substitute freely one active ingredient for another.  “Dexibuprofen therefore would be a new drug, requiring a new drug application.”  Id.

[F]ederal law prohibited defendants from changing the design of [the drug] by selling dexibuprofen without prior FDA approval.  Defendants accordingly could not have avoided design defect liability without violating federal law.  “FDA regulations provide that once a drug, whether generic or brand-name, is approved, the manufacturer is prohibited from making any major changes to the qualitative or quantitative formulation of the drug product.”

Id. (quoting and following Yates, 808 F.3d at 298).

Preemption applied because the defendant could not have acted “unilaterally” to make the design change purportedly required by state product liability law – whether design defect is measured by consumer expectation or risk/utility:

Thus, under federal law [citations omitted] defendants could not unilaterally change the chemical composition of [the drug] from ibuprofen to dexibuprofen in order to satisfy consumer expectations or to increase the benefits or decrease the risks of [the drug].  Nor could they be required to stop selling [the drug] in order to avoid state liability.  Plaintiff’s design defect claim accordingly is preempted.

Id. at *26 (Bartlett citations omitted) (after quoting from a half-dozen cases listed in our post-Levine drug preemption cheat sheet).

Moreover, after trying the case as a straight-forward “you should have designed the product differently” claim, plaintiff could not attempt to convert it to some kind of quasi-warning-based case.  Plaintiff had a real warning claim (which we’ll get to) and couldn’t convert one possible design related factor (presence of warnings) into the whole design ball of wax to avoid preemption after having tried a different case to the jury.  Id.

But there’s more on design first.

Second, as we mentioned, California allows plaintiffs generally to prosecute design defect claims on either a consumer expectation or risk/utility theory of liability.  Not anymore in prescription medical product cases after Trejo.  Trejo also held, quite apart from preemption, that the consumer expectation theory was inapplicable to complicated products such as OTC drugs – and thus, we would argue, a fortiori would be inapplicable to prescription medical products.

The consumer expectation test is only appropriate for products that “everyday experience” allows consumers generally to have safety expectations about:

[T]he consumer expectations test is reserved for cases in which the everyday experience of the product’s users permits a conclusion that the product’s design violated minimum safety assumptions, and is thus defective regardless of expert opinion about the merits of the design.

Trejo, 2017 WL 2825803, at *27 (quoting Soule v. General Motors Corp., 882 P.2d 298, 308 (Cal. 1994)) (emphasis original).  OTC drugs – let alone prescription products – aren’t that.  Plaintiff tried the case with expert witnesses, which is a no-no under the consumer expectation theory.  That plaintiff did so demonstrated the theory’s inapplicability.

The circumstances of [the drug’s] failure involve technical details and expert testimony regarding the effect of the product upon an individual plaintiff’s health, and the ultimate question of whether [the drug] was defectively designed calls for a careful assessment of feasibility, practicality, risk, and benefit.

Id. at *30 (citations and quotation marks omitted).  SJS was an “unusual reaction” to the drug, thus “expert testimony was required to explain plaintiff’s theory.”  Id.  “Accordingly, we conclude that the consumer expectation test should not have been applied.”  Id.

In light of this complexity, plaintiff’s excuse for consumer expectations fell in the same barnyard as his argument against stop selling preemption.  Simply testifying that “I didn’t expect to get hurt” didn’t cut it:

Plaintiff here contends that the consumer expectation test applies because the ordinary consumer does not expect to contract SJS/TEN from taking OTC [ibuprofen].  However, it could be said that any injury from the intended or foreseeable use of a product is not expected by the ordinary consumer.  If this were the end of the inquiry, the consumer expectation test always would apply and every product would be found to have a design defect.

Trejo, 2017 WL 2825803, at *29 (emphasis added).  A consumer cannot, by playing dumb, bootstrap himself into a consumer expectation claim.  “[T]he consumer expectation test does not apply merely because the consumer states that he or she did not expect to be injured by the product.”  Id. Admittedly, we haven’t seen that many California plaintiffs audacious (or desperate) enough to utilize consumer expectation theories against FDA-approved products; nonetheless we’re beyond pleased now to have explicit appellate authority precluding this theory of liability against our clients.

After Trejo, it becomes a lot harder for any plaintiff to pursue a design defect claim against a prescription medical product in California.  If the design considerations that go into OTC drugs are too complex and involved to allow use of the consumer expectation theory of liability, than that theory is even less available to more sophisticated prescription products whose risks and benefits are so esoteric that the FDA has concluded that they should be dispensed only after evaluation by medical doctors.  Likewise, the Mensing/Bartlett preemption rationale against design defects is equally applicable to all FDA regulated products.  Can a branded drug manufacturer change its product’s active ingredient – or any other aspect of the product that materially affects product safety?   No.  And neither can a medical device manufacturer.  Effectively, all design defect claims that could make a difference in a product liability action (that materially affect “safety”) require prior FDA review, and thus should be preempted under Trejo and the Mensing/Bartlett independence principle.

That’s still not all.  We still have Trejo’s disposition of the warning-related aspects of the verdict to discuss.

Third, the Court of Appeal unanimously held that the jury’s verdict for the defendant on strict liability warning defect was fatally inconsistent with its verdict for plaintiff on negligent failure to warn.  Trejo, 2017 WL 2825803, at *8-14.  From a national perspective, this result is less important than the design defect aspects we just finished with, because disposition of the warning claim has to do with the interaction of California’s peculiar warning-based legal doctrines, which still attempt to maintain a difference between negligence and strict liability in the warning context.  Most other states treat them interchangeably.

It’s still important in Trejo, however.  $50 million is $50 million.

Briefly – because the whole thing reeks of hair-splitting to us – “both the strict liability and negligence theories were premised on a single alleged defect.”  Id. at *8.  “[U]nder either a negligence or a strict liability theory of products liability, to recover from a manufacturer, a plaintiff must prove that a defect caused injury.”  Id. at *6.  However, “strict liability, which was developed to ease a claimant’s burden of proof, requires proof of fewer elements than negligence.”  Id.  Thus, negligence requires “an additional element, namely, that the defect in the product was due to negligence of the defendant.”  Id.  Where (as here) the claimed defect under both theories is the same, that means that strict liability simply eliminates an necessary element, so that “a positive verdict on the latter [negligence, is] difficult to explain if strict liability cannot be found.”  Id.

Exactly that happened in Trejo, and it cost plaintiff $50 million.  It wasn’t the first time, either.  A previous decision, Valentine v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 81 Cal. Rptr. 2d 252, 262-64 (Cal. App. 1999), was directly on point, forthrightly holding that “[a]s a practical matter then, the difference in the two concepts [negligence and strict liability] is so small as to make no difference.”  Id. at 263.  The jury’s finding for the defendant on the “easier” warning defect claim was necessarily inconsistent with its finding for plaintiff on the “harder to prove” negligent warning claim.  Trejo, 2017 WL 2825803, at *14 (“The jury’s special verdict on negligent failure to warn is fatally inconsistent with its verdict on strict liability failure to warn and must be reversed.”).

Who knows what would have happened if this plaintiff had not insisted on more than one bite at the apple?  That’s what we’ll find out on retrial.  We have no idea when that might be however, since further appellate review in Trejo is certainly possible.  In this respect, we are reminded that Bartlett, like Trejo, was also an SJS case.

We have a point of view. Our readers understand that we represent folks on the right side of the v., and our posts tend to read cases and legal trends with a pro-defense bent, although you can rest assured that we put a lot of thought into it.  From time to time, however, we see an opinion that is just plain wrong, and we have to call it out.  That is the case today with Mink v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., No. 16-11646, 2017 WL 2723913 (11th Cir. June 26, 2017).  The plaintiff sued the manufacturer of a metal-on-metal hip replacement device for negligence and strict product liability, among other claims, alleging that the manufacturer did not meet federal requirements in the manufacture of the device, that it improperly trained surgeons, and that it failed to report adverse events. Id. at **6-8.

The device is a Class III device approved through the FDA’s rigorous premarket approval process. That means express preemption applies, and because the plaintiff was suing to enforce federal requirements on the manufacturing of a device, implied preemption applies, too.  The district court so ruled and dismissed the plaintiff’s claims. Id. at *2.  But the Eleventh Circuit came to the opposite conclusion, and the opinion caught our eye for two reasons.  First, the Eleventh Circuit professes to know more about Florida law than the Florida courts.  What do we mean by that?  Well, the Medical Device Amendments state that federal law preempts all state law requirements “different from or in addition to” federal requirements.  Under the widely misunderstood “parallel claim” exception, plaintiffs can sometimes pursue state law claims that “parallel” federal claims, but this requires that state law actually recognize such a cause of action.

Here, the Eleventh Circuit allowed the plaintiff’s manufacturing defect claims to proceed as “parallel claims” because Florida recognizes a strict product liability claim based on a manufacturing defect and the plaintiff alleged that the defendant “violated the Florida common law duty to use due care in manufacturing a medical device.” Id. at *7.  This is okay as far as it goes, but what was the basis for the manufacturing defect and the alleged breach of duty?  The manufacturer did not comply with the FDA’s requirements. Id. at *8.  The plaintiff was suing because the manufacturer allegedly violated federal requirements.

That is federal preemption. Moreover, a Florida court recently held in the context of MDA express preemption that neither federal law nor Florida state law creates a private right of action to enforce federal medical device requirements. Id. at *5 (discussing Wolicki-Gables v. Doctors Same Day Surgery Ctr., Ltd., 216 So. 3d 665 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)).  To make matters worse, the Florida Supreme Court held more than twenty years ago that penal and regulatory laws do not create a private right of action under Florida law absent a clear legislative intent to do so. See Murthy v. N. Sinha Corp., 644 So. 2d 983, 986 (Fla. 1994).  Congress has expressly said that the FDCA and the Medical Device Amendments do not create a private right of action, and the Florida legislature has never created such a right of action either.  The Eleventh Circuit apparently knows better.

The second reason this opinion caught our eye is the Eleventh’s Circuit’s apparent motivation—that unless it reversed the district court’s order dismissing the plaintiff’s claims, the plaintiff would not be allowed to proceed. Id. at *5.  We sometimes characterize opinions as “result oriented,” but rarely are circuit courts so blunt.  This court took umbrage with the idea that a plaintiff would not be able to pursue product liability claims against the manufacturer of a premarket approved device.  The Supreme Court thought differently in Riegel.

The court did hold that claims based on inadequate training were expressly preempted because no such claim exists under Florida law (i.e., there is no “parallel”), and the claim based on the failure to report adverse events was impliedly preempted because it was similar to a “fraud on the FDA” theory, per Buckman. The district court, however, came to correct result for the correct reasons when it dismissed the plaintiff’s claims.  The Eleventh Circuit should have affirmed it.

Here’s the crux of today’s case, In re Trader Joe’s Tuna Litig., 2017 WL 2408117, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Jun. 2, 2017):

Plaintiffs determined that the Trader Joe’s tuna cans were underfilled and underweight by commissioning testing with the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (“NOAA”) on December 1, 2015. NOAA tested several varieties of Trader Joe’s tuna according to the FDA’s standards for canned tuna, pursuant to 21 C.F.R. § 161.190. This statute determines the standard fill of tuna within a container based on its pressed cake weight.

Even though there’s more, we cut this block quote short because we saw the word “cake.” It’s distracting. Cake has always distracted us. It’s a minor miracle that it didn’t cause us to simply insert a post-ending ellipsis and begin a blurry daydream about cake, like a daydreaming scene in a movie. The only thing that stopped us was that the block quote also said “tuna.” We like tuna just fine. But tuna cake? That’s not so enticing.

Unless—apparently—you’re a class action plaintiffs’ lawyer. Ever in search of financial damages and the type of factual and legal sameness that leads to class certification, pressed cakes of tuna had the plaintiffs’ lawyers daydreaming. They dreamed of financial damages for underweighted tuna cans and the necessary sameness created by an FDA regulation that set the standard for weighing them. And so they gathered putative class representatives and filed claims ranging from breach of implied warranty of merchantability, unjust enrichment and fraud to violations of New York General Business Law §§ 349, 350 and violations of the ever-present California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Unfair Competition Law, and False Advertising Law. Id.

And, while many of these claims are not typical in product liability litigation, they certainly do implicate defenses that are. The claims are—explicitly—premised on alleged violations of FDA regulations. And that allowed defendants to bring a motion to dismiss asserting a number of very familiar defenses, including implied preemption, conflict preemption, and primary jurisdiction. Id. at *2. For instance, primary jurisdiction was in play because, according to defendants (id. at *1), the FDA was actively considering revising its weight regulation that relied on pressed cake. . . . . . .

. . . Yum, there it is again. Cake. We’re imagining it as chocolate cake—with chocolate icing. Better yet, chocolate ganache. That’s probably the same as chocolate icing, but it sounds so much tastier. And no “erries”—that means, no blueberries, strawberries, raspberries, or anything like them. They get in the way of the chocolate without being nearly as good. It’s fine to include vanilla, preferably as ice cream. But that’s it. No other additions. That is, unless we make it a chocolate soufflé—or bread pudding. Or how about a three-course meal of chocolate cake, soufflé and bread pudding . . . . .

Oh, sorry. Back to the law. . . . . .

It wasn’t primary jurisdiction that won dismissal. It was implied preemption under Buckman. A reminder on the standard:

The plaintiff must be suing for conduct that violates the FDCA (or else his claim is expressly preempted by § 360k(a)), but the plaintiff must not be suing because the conduct violates the FDCA (such a claim would be impliedly preempted under Buckman). Perez v. Nidek Co., 711 F.3d 1109, 1120 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting In re Medtronic, 623 F.3d 1200, 1204 (8th Cir. 2010) (emphasis in original)). Thus, “under principles of implied preemption … private litigants may not bring a state-law claim against a defendant when the state-law claim is in substance (even if not in form) a claim for violating the FDCA.” Loreto v. Procter & Gamble Co., 515 F. App’x 576, 579 (6th Cir. 2013)

Id. at *2.

And there simply was no way for the plaintiffs to get around the fact that they were absolutely suing “because” the underweighting of the tuna cases allegedly violated the FDA regulated testing standard. And so the court dismissed the claims:

In sum, Plaintiffs’ claims would not exist without the FDCA. Plaintiffs allege that Trader Joe’s misrepresented that its cans contained an adequate amount of tuna . . . . Plaintiffs also maintain that the reason the amount in the tuna cans was inadequate is because it failed to meet the pressed cake weight standard under 21 C.F.R. § 161.190. Consequently, the theory underlying Plaintiffs’ state-law claims depends entirely on an FDA regulation. Plaintiffs’ state law claims are in reality claimed violations of an FDA regulation, and therefore, the FDCA prohibits Plaintiffs from bringing them. On this basis, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.

Id. at *4.

Piece of cake.

Put a New Yorker and a Californian in a room together and the debate will begin almost immediately. Hollywood v. Broadway. Atlantic v. Pacific. Dodgers v. Yankees or Giants v. Forty-Niners. Shake Shack v. In-N-Out (or is Five Guys overtaking both?). And more generally speaking that east coast/west coast divide extends beyond those two urban hubs. Laid back v. fast-paced lifestyle. Deserts v. low country. Golden Gate v. Sunshine Skyway. Disneyland v. Disney World. And let’s not forget – the west coast may be synonymous with California sunshine, but the east coast gives you actual seasons.

While failure to report adverse event claims are not limited to the west coast, we think of them as Stengel claims. In case you need reminding, we believe that the Ninth Circuit made a historic error in Stengel v. Medtronic Inc., 704 F.3d 1224 (9th Cir., 2013) (en banc), when it equated routine product liability inadequate warning claims with indirect third-party warning claims where the third party is a governmental agency – that is, the FDA. Since Stengel is a Ninth Circuit case and the Ninth Circuit includes the entire west coast – we’re going to saddle the west coast with that one. And we’re going to praise an east coast court for saying, thanks but no thanks.

We’ve talked about Burrell v. Bayer Corporation before when earlier this year the court ruled that allegations of parallel claims in plaintiff’s complaint conferred federal question jurisdiction. After winning on removal, the defendants next moved to dismiss the entire case on preemption. Round 2 goes to defendants as well.

The product at issue is the Essure birth control medical device. It is a pre-market approved device so preemption shouldn’t be a big surprise. Burrell v. Bayer Corp., 2017 WL 1955333, *1 (W.D.N.C. May 10, 2017). As is true of the vast majority of drug and medical device products cases, failure to warn is at the heart of the case. But as we already know, traditional failure to warn claims are preempted in PMA device cases. So, plaintiffs pushed for a Stengel-claim. Plaintiff’s argument is failure to warn premised on failure to provide adverse event reports to the FDA is a non-preempted parallel claim. Unpersuaded by the reasoning of that west coast court, Burrell found that the requirement to report adverse events exists under the FDCA rather than state law and therefore, plaintiff’s failure to warn claim is “being brought because the [] defendants allegedly failed to meet these reporting requirements.” Burrell, at *5 (emphasis added). And where a claim is being brought solely based on a violation of the FDCA – that’s Buckman implied preemption. Traditional failure to warn is expressly preempted, failure to report to the FDA is impliedly preempted. Score one for the east coast for getting this.

But the court didn’t stop there. Analyzing the claim under state law, it still didn’t hold up because plaintiff’s allegations didn’t support a finding of causation. This is where most Stengel claims. By the time the device was implanted in plaintiff, the FDA had received and analyzed the adverse event reports and the subsequent warning did not contain any new information. Id. at *5 (although a black box warning was required, that was a new “type” of warning, the substance of the warning was unchanged). So there was no causal nexus between the alleged failure to report and plaintiff’s injury.

None of plaintiff’s remaining claims fared any better. On failure to train, the claim only survives preemption if premised on allegations that defendant failed to train in accordance with federal requirements. Plaintiff made no such allegations. Id. at *6. Moreover, plaintiff again failed to allege any facts to support a causal connection between the failure to train and her injury. Id. Plaintiff’s negligent manufacturing claim suffered the same fate – no alleged violation of federal requirements and no facts to support causation. Id. Plaintiff’s design defect claim was dismissed as expressly preempted. As a PMA device, the “FDA made its determination of this products safety and effectiveness for its given use. As the plaintiff cannot allege that [defendant] departed from its FDA-approved design of this product, these design defect claims are preempted.” Id. at *7. Even if not preempted, North Carolina does not recognize strict liability claims for products liability. Id.

            Moving on to warranty claims, plaintiff alleged that defendant expressly warranted the product was safe. To find that defendant breached that warranty, a jury would have to conclude that the product was unsafe – which is contrary to the FDA’s conclusion in its pre-market approval that the device was in fact safe and effective. So, express warranty is expressly preempted. Id. Since plaintiff’s implied warranty claim also turned on whether the product was reasonably safe, it too was expressly preempted. “The FDA, under the FDCA and the MDA, has the express authority to make such determinations as to the safety and effectiveness of Class III medical devices.” Id.

Plaintiff’s final claims against the manufacturer were for fraud and unfair trade practices. The court first noted that most of the allegations on these claims were just a re-packaging of the allegations pleaded with plaintiff’s other claims. Since the allege misrepresentations were largely “indistinguishable from FDA-approved labeling statements” – they too were preempted. Id. at *8.

Nice job North Carolina. In the east coast v. west coast debate, we’ll side with an anti-Stengel jurisdiction every time.

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

A federal judge in Texas recently ruled that Texas law does not allow a claim for negligence per se based solely on alleged violations of the FDCA or FDA regulations. Monk v. Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72477, *21-23 (W.D. Tex May 11, 2017). That seems pretty straightforward to us. Plaintiffs typically use negligence per se to try to privately enforce a provision of the FDCA, i.e., by using an alleged violation of a safety-related provision of the FDCA as the basis for their state law claim.  State law does not always allow this, but even when it does, such a claim should not withstand implied preemption under Buckman.  That is because Buckman and section 337(a) of the FDCA make it clear that litigants cannot privately enforce the FDCA, and a negligence per se claim based on a purported violation of the FDCA is an unveiled attempt to accomplish exactly that. Monk doesn’t say all of that explicitly, but it relies on cases that do. That’s good enough for us.

Plaintiff based her negligence per se claim on the defendants’ alleged failure to provide medication guides for distribution with amiodarone prescriptions.  The basis for the claim was the federal regulation requiring manufacturers of some prescription drugs to make medication guides available either by providing a sufficient number of guides to distributors and dispensers or by providing the means to produce guides in sufficient numbers. Id. at *3, *6 (citing 21 C.F.R. § 208.24(b)).

And this is where things get confusing, because while the court dismissed plaintiff’s negligence per se claim based on violation of this regulation, the court reached the opposite conclusion regarding plaintiff’s negligent failure to warn claim based on exactly the same thing.  A state law failure-to-warn claim based on a violation of federal prescription drug regulations? Sounds like implied preemption to us, but the court concluded that this very federal-sounding claim was actually a parallel state law failure to warn claim. But wait. Isn’t plaintiff suing because the defendant allegedly violated the FDCA.  That’s Buckman implied preemption. As many courts have noted, plaintiffs seeking to avoid preemption have to weave their way through a “narrow gap” by alleging they are suing for conduct that violated the FDCA, but not because the conduct violated the FDCA. But the only allegation here is that defendants did not provide the medication guides as required by federal regulations.

The court’s reasoning is based entirely on dicta in the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Eckhardt v. Qualitest Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 751 F.3d 674, 679 (5th Cir. 2014) that “failing to provide FDA-approved warnings would be a violation of both state and federal law, this is a parallel claim that is not preempted.” Id. But the claim that defendants provided no warnings was not alleged in the complaint and so was not allowed by the court. There is no information in Eckhardt regarding the basis for plaintiff’s claim that defendant failed to provide any warnings and so it is unknown if it was “because” defendant’s violated a federal regulation.

In Monk, the court knew precisely the basis for plaintiff’s failure to warn claim – 21 C.F.R. § 208.24(b); the same basis as plaintiff’s negligence per se claim. That the result is different on both claims is really difficult to reconcile. So we won’t try. We’ll instead reiterate – no negligence per se based on FDCA in Texas.

 

Late last year we happily blogged about Utts v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., ___ F. Supp.3d ___, 2016 WL 7429449 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 23, 2016), chiefly because it held that design defect claims against a branded prescription drug (Eliquis) were preempted under the impossibility preemption reasoning in PLIVA, Inc. v. Mensing, 564 U.S. 604 (2011), and Mutual Pharmaceutical Co. v. Bartlett, 133 S.Ct. 2466 (2013).  However, as we noted in that post, dismissal of the non-design aspects of complaint was with “leave to amend.” See also Utts, 2016 WL 7429449, at *1.

Of course, plaintiffs amended.

Now, they probably wish they hadn’t.

In a second opinion, issued earlier this month, the Utts litigation was dismissed a second time, this time with prejudice. Utts v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., ___ F. Supp.3d ___, 2017 WL 1906875 (S.D.N.Y. May 8, 2017) (“Utts II”).  Preemption was once again front and center, but this time an excellent preemption result was accompanied by a variety of equally pleasing common-law – California law – rulings.

Impossibility Preemption

First, preemption. Design defect claims had already been preempted under Mensing/Bartlett, as plaintiffs were reminded whenever they crossed the line into design-type claims. Id. at *1, 9, 10 n.10, 13 n.15, 16, 19.  But the major preemption issue this time around involved warnings – and whether any of the information that plaintiffs claimed required some kind of “better” warnings involved “newly acquired information” of the sort that a defendant could unilaterally add given the scope of the FDA’s “changes being effected” exception to preemption recognized in Wyeth v. Levine, 555 U.S. 555 (2009). See 21 C.F.R. §314.3(b) (known as the “CBE” regulation for drugs – note, there are similar CBE regulations for devices and biologics; we’ve discussed the device regulation here).

For a more detailed discussion of the “newly acquired information” aspect of preemption, see our post here about In re Celexa & Lexapro Marketing & Sales Practices Litigation, 779 F.3d 34 (1st Cir. 2015), which was the first appellate decision finding preemption where plaintiffs failed to come forward with any “new” information to support their warning claims. Utts II explained that, in the preemption context, “if the plaintiff can point to the existence of ‘newly acquired information’ to support a labeling change under the CBE regulation, the burden then shifts to the manufacturer to show by ‘clear evidence’ that the FDA would not have approved the labeling change made on the basis of this newly acquired information.”  2017 WL 1906875, at *9.

Plaintiffs threw a lot of mud at the drug and its manufacturer, but nothing they heaved against the wall stuck – everything plaintiffs cited all old information that did not go beyond what the FDA had before it when it approved the drug in the first place.

Why is that?

Basically, Eliquis is a next-generation anticoagulant, very effective at what it does, and not requiring the kind of dietary restrictions and constant blood testing that older blood thinners such as warfarin – originally sold as rat poison – do.  Utts II, 2017 WL 1906875, at *2 & n.4.  Unfortunately, the plaintiffs’ bar has decided that anybody needing anticoagulation therapy should be should only have such older drugs available, and has launched an ongoing litigation assault at practically every next generation anticoagulant (others include Xarelto and Pradaxa) – because of risks of serious and sometimes fatal bleeding inherent in what these drugs are supposed to do.

The FDA was well aware of the risks that Eliquis, like any other anticoagulant, could cause uncontrollable bleeding when it approved it. Indeed, the “label warns about the risk of serious bleeding no less than five times.” Id. at *3.  It “specifically warns about the risk of bleeding” during concomitant therapy “in conjunction with antiplatelet agents, such as aspirin.”  Id. at *4.  The labeling also “twice warns about the fact that there is no specific antidote” should serious bleeding occur.  Id.

That’s why plaintiffs lost in Utts II.

Basically, the well-known fact that anticoagulants carry with them serious bleeding risks is why none of the information that the plaintiffs in Utts II brought forward qualified as “new.”  “New” is defined in the FDA’s CBE regulation as “studies, events, or analyses [that] reveal risks of a different type or greater severity or frequency than previously included in submissions to FDA.  21 C.F.R. §314.3(b) (quoted at 2017 WL 1906875, at *8).  In the preemption context, “

  • “The table and the description from the ISMP report do not suggest − nor do the plaintiffs allege − that the real-world signal data for [the drug] shows a greater severity or frequency of bleeding events or deaths than previously disclosed in [defendant’s] submissions to the FDA. Accordingly, the information contained in this table does not constitute newly acquired information. Utts II, 2017 WL 1906875, at *13.
  • Plaintiffs argue “that the guidance regarding concomitant use of antiplatelet agents is inadequate because the label does not advise how or when to use combination therapy . . . or how commonly bleeding events will occur. This omission . . . was evident to the FDA when it approved the label and the plaintiffs have not identified any newly acquired information.” Id. (quotation marks and footnote omitted).
  • This observation does not constitute newly acquired information, as it simply speculates whether [drug] safety could be further improved. Id. at *14 (as to “improved dosage guidance”).
  • [E]mbolic-thrombotic events are . . . not bleeding events. Nor do the plaintiffs argue that any of this data comparing the incidence of embolic-thrombotic events . . . constitutes newly acquired information. Id. (footnote omitted).
  • [T]he findings directed towards the risk of ischemic stroke for [the drug] users do not constitute newly acquired information. Id. at *15.
  • [P]laintiffs do not allege, however, that this expert guidance contains, or is founded upon, any newly acquired information regarding reversal agents or the treatment of excessive bleeding.” Id.
  • “[P]laintiffs do not allege that this statement contains newly acquired information about what constitutes a safe residual drug level.” Id. at *16.
  • “[T]his article does not refer to any new information that would have permitted the defendants to amend the [drug’s] label. And, in their opposition to this motion, the plaintiffs do not argue that it does.” Id.
  • “[P]laintiffs do not contend that any of the five remaining documents . . . contains newly acquired information regarding an undisclosed risk of bleeding. Several of these articles merely express a desire for further investigation. Id.

Thus, although plaintiffs loaded up their amended complaint with no fewer than “34 warnings that the defendants allegedly failed to provide,” 2017 WL 1906875, at *11, there was no safety in numbers. None of their supposedly missing warnings was based on “newly acquired information” as defined and required by the FDA’s CBE regulation.

Because, plaintiffs could not point to any “newly acquired information” to support their warning-related allegations, those allegations fell outside the scope of the Levine CBE exception and were preempted, because under Mensing/Bartlett such warnings could not be added without prior FDA approval.  2017 WL 1906875, at *9.

Next, in accordance with practically all law, Utts II held that preemption could be decided on a motion to dismiss.  A “determination regarding preemption is a conclusion of law.” Id. at *19 (pointing out that Mensing had been decided on a motion to dismiss).  To the extent that the Third Circuit’s aberrant Fosamax decision was pertinent, it was distinguishable.  Fosamax was limited to “clear evidence” determinations, and in Utts II, because plaintiffs offered no “new” information, clear evidence was never at issue.  Id. at *19-20.  Finally, plaintiffs were “not entitled to discovery on preempted claims.”  Id. at *20 (discussing TwIqbal).

In a way, the new evidence requirement discussed in Utts II resembles the so called “public disclosure” requirement that is a defense to False Claims Act claims (see here for more discussion), except that the “newness” of the information in preemption of state-law warning claims is measured against the evidence presented to the FDA, as opposed to the public.

Buckman Preemption

Utts II also found fraud-on-the-FDA preemption under Buckman Co. v. Plaintiffs Legal Committee, 531 U.S. 341 (2001).  Plaintiffs ran from their blatant fraud-on-the-FDA allegations, asking that they “be read merely as evidentiary background.”  2017 WL 1906875, at *26.  The court read them as they were written (and no doubt intended), and found preemption:

Each of the statements on which the fraud claim is premised depends on statements made to and approved by the FDA. There is no newly acquired information that required or suggested that the allegedly fraudulent statements should be altered to remain truthful and non-fraudulent.  Accordingly, the fraud claims are preempted.

Id.

Other FDCA-Related Issues

On other FDCA-related issues, Utts II ends up on our Adverse Drug/Device Event cheat sheet because of its discussion of how voluntarily reported adverse events aren’t legitimate proof of causation:

Federal regulations advise that a report submitted by a manufacturer “does not necessarily reflect a conclusion by the [manufacturer] or FDA that the report or information constitutes an admission that the drug caused or contributed to an adverse effect.” 21 C.F.R. § 314.80(l).  As the FDA Website explains:

FDA does not require that a causal relationship between a product and event be proven, and reports do not always contain enough detail to properly evaluate an event. Further, FDA does not receive reports for every adverse event or medication error that occurs with a product. Many factors can influence whether or not an event will be reported, such as the time a product has been marketed and publicity about an event.

The Supreme Court has similarly warned that “[t]he fact that a user of a drug has suffered an adverse event, standing alone, does not mean that the drug caused that event.” Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. v. Siracusano, 563 U.S. 27, 44 (2011). I n sum, “the mere existence of reports of adverse events . . . says nothing in and of itself about whether the drug is causing the adverse events.” Id.

Utts II, 2017 WL 1906875, at *12.

In addition, Utts II contains an excellent discussion of the harmful effects of overwarning.  The need to prevent overwarning is the reason that the CBE regulation does not apply to all information, new or old, that could in some way “strengthen” existing warnings:

The FDA has recognized that “[e]xaggeration of risk, or inclusion of speculative or hypothetical risks, could discourage appropriate use of a beneficial drug . . . or decrease the usefulness and accessibility of important information by diluting or obscuring it.” Indeed, “labeling that includes theoretical hazards not well-grounded in scientific evidence can cause meaningful risk information to lose its significance.” For this reason, the CBE regulation requires that there be sufficient evidence of a causal association between the drug and the information sought to be added.

Utts II, 2017 WL 1906875, at *8 (all quotes from “Supplemental Applications Proposing Labeling Changes for Approved Drugs, Biologics, and Medical Devices,” 73 Fed. Reg. 2848 (FDA Jan. 16, 2008).

Another notable FDA-related aspect of Utts II has to do with so-called “comparative claims” – claims that one medication is better than another in some respect.  Plaintiffs often claim (as they did in Utts II) that there is some sort of duty to warn that ones product is less safe than its competition.  However, Utts II points out that the FDA does not permit such claims except when supported by specific types and amounts of scientific evidence.  “[A]ny claim comparing the drug to which the labeling applies with other drugs in terms of frequency, severity, or character of adverse reactions must be based on adequate and well-controlled studies.”  2017 WL 1906875, at *7 (citing 21 C.F.R. §201.57(c)(7)(iii)).  Further, “federal regulations do not require a manufacturer to include information about a competitor’s product or progress.” Id. at *16 (citing 21 C.F.R. §§201.56, 201.57, 201.80).

State-Law Warning Issues

Beyond its preemption and other FDCA-related aspects, Utts II has a load of other helpful holdings, mostly about California law.  The decision contains an excellent discussion of the state of the art defense.  2017 WL 1906875, at *10.  It also points out that, the California Supreme Court’s holding – quite apart from preemption – that as a matter of federal/state comity, warning liability does not exist as a matter of state law where the purported duty flies in the face of FDA regulation:

Even where a risk is “known” or “knowable” at the time of distribution, under California law, a manufacturer “may not be held liable for failing to give a warning it has been expressly precluded by the FDA from giving.” Thus, if the manufacturer disclosed to the FDA “state-of-the-art scientific data concerning the alleged risk” and the FDA determined, after its review, “that the pharmaceutical manufacturer was not permitted to warn − e.g., because the data was inconclusive or the risk was too speculative to justify a warning,” then the manufacturer could not be held strictly liable for failure to warn. “[T]he FDA’s conclusion that there was, in effect, no ‘known risk’ is controlling.”

2017 WL 1906875, at *11 (all quotations from Carlin v. Superior Court, 920 P.2d 1347 (Cal. 1996)).  Thus, the same grounds that support preemption as a matter of federal law – where, as here, the FDA says “no” – also preclude liability as a matter of state law.

In tandem with preemption, Utts II also holds that the defendant’s drug labeling was adequate as a matter of California law on the bleeding issues raised by plaintiffs – just as our prior post thought it should.  In general, the label “clearly discloses that there is a risk of excessive bleeding and that there is no known antidote if that occurs.”  2017 WL 1906875, at *21.  Nor could plaintiffs prevail with any of the usual nitpicking that goes on in this type of litigation.

  • Monitoring – “The label provides, in unambiguous terms, all of the scientifically reliable information that physicians may need to determine how to monitor their patients.” Id.
  • Bleeding Reversal – A “recommendation is to discontinue [the drug] and apply ‘standard supportive treatment and other local measures’ . . . does not supply a basis for a plausible claim that the label needed to add further guidance.” Id. at *22 (quoting medical article).
  • Dosage – Plaintiffs do “not identify any research or data that undermines or contradicts the dosing guidance” and “speculation about information that the defendants may possess is insufficient to plausibly plead a claim.” Id. (citing TwIqbal).

Similarly, plaintiffs other warning-based claims failed due to the adequacy of the warning.  Id. at *24 (implied warranty), *26-27 (fraud); *29 (consumer fraud)

Finally, here are some other California warning-related nuggets we can use:  (1) Under the learned intermediary rule, “a manufacturer discharges its duty to warn if it provides adequate warnings to the physician about any known or reasonably knowable dangerous side effects, regardless of whether the warning reaches the patient.”  2017 WL 1906875, at *11. (2) “[P]harmaceutical manufacturer[s] may not be required to provide warning of a risk known to the medical community.” Id. (quoting Carlin).  (3) “[W]arnings relevant to any breach of warranty claim are those directed to the physician rather than the patient.” Id. at *22 (quoting Carlin) (emphasis original).  (4) The opinion notes that the learned intermediary rule applies to California consumer fraud claims.  Id. at *28 n.32.

Looking Forward

Utts II contains by far the most detailed discussion to date of the interplay between preemption and the “newly acquired evidence” requirement of the FDA’s CBE regulation.  It would be notable for that reason alone.  However, it also finds the labeling adequate as a matter of law, which is second highly significant ruling in any prescription medical product litigation.  What’s more, since the entire Utts amended complaint is now dismissed with prejudice, not only Utts II, but also the original Utts design defect preemption ruling, is now appealable.

Any appeal would be interesting.  Every ruling in Utts II is double-breasted, in that preemption is bolstered by independent state law grounds.  That is not the case with design defect preemption in the original Utts decision, where preemption is the sole basis for dismissal.  Utts, 2016 WL 7429449, at *12.  So, if plaintiffs were to appeal, their only clean shot at preemption would involve their design claim.  In any event, the preemption rulings in both Utts (Yates v. Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 808 F.3d 281 (6th Cir. 2015)), and Utts II (Celexa, 779 F.3d 34) are supported by court of appeals decisions, as our preemption cheat sheet demonstrates.  At best, in a hypothetical appeal, we would get an affirmance and reinforcing appellate precedent supporting preemption in innovator drug cases.  At worst, there would be a circuit split, which would offer the further (double-hypothetical) possibility of additional Supreme Court review of what Utts II called the Levine “trilogy.”  2017 WL 1906875, at *9.  While we always prefer to win, whenever, however, and as quickly and as thoroughly as possible, we certainly would find another shot at innovator drug preemption in the Supreme Court an interesting proposition.