We may not know much about skin care, but we know a thing or two about labeling claims.  Whether for a drug, a device, a food, a cosmetic, or some other product, it is necessary to apply some common sense in determining what is or is not in a product’s labeling should give rise to liability.  The court in Browning v. Unilever U.S., Inc., No. SACV 16-02210, 2018 WL 6615064 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 17, 2018), applied a healthy dose of common sense in granting summary judgment for the defendant against consumer fraud and warranty claims by a purported of deceived purchasers.  The product at issue was St. Ives Apricot Scrub and allegations centered on the presence in the product of a powder from the crushed shells of walnut to lend exfoliating power to the scrub.  We will try to keep the nuttiness to a minimum as we discuss the decision.

The court’s introduction gets to the kernel of the dispute:

This “Scrub” is an exfoliant and like all such products is necessarily abrasive. Plaintiffs claim that the Scrub causes “micro-tears” and speeds up the aging process. Plaintiffs allege Unilever failed to disclose the scrub’s negative side effects before selling it to the public and misled consumers into believing it was dermatologist recommended.

Id. at *1.  Before we crack into the analysis, we have a little detour into some things not really spelled out in the decision.  This is probably obvious, but the scrub is used by gently rubbing it into the skin on your wet face and then washing it off.  Under the directions section on the tube of scrub are the ingredients section, which lists “Juglans Regia (Walnut) Shell Powder” right after water.  For those who are curious, these shells come from one of twenty-one species of walnuts.  If a reader or potential consumer were curious enough to look at the website for the product, then it would not be hard to see that Walnut Shell Powder is identified as the second “key ingredient” of the product (after apricot extract) and that the “exfoliation factor” of the product is characterized as “deep.”  With that extra-judicial context, we get back to the meat of the decision. (OK, we will stop with the gratuitous nut references.)

We will start with the second of plaintiffs’ basic claims, that the label was misleading in saying it was “Dermatologist Tested.”  Plaintiffs claimed that statement somehow suggested the product was “recommended” or “approved” by dermatologists, but they acknowledged that the product was tested by dermatologists and the court could read.  Id. at *4.  So, plaintiffs went to a back-up argument that references to testing were misleading without disclosing an alleged risk of the product.  That brings us to the first argument.

The first argument was that the walnut shell powder made the product too abrasive and caused indiscernible micro-tears in the skin that increase the incidence of acne, infection, and wrinkles, which in turn make the skin of users look older faster.  Because this was in the posture of summary judgment, plaintiffs actually offered up evidence like expert declarations, deposition testimony, and even published articles and a study done for litigation by their retained expert.  Viewed in a light favorable to plaintiffs, this evidence “at best show[s] that St. Ives Scrub could, in theory, alter the skin’s surface.”  Id. at *3 (emphasis in original).  However, under California law, “the alleged unreasonable safety hazard must describe more than merely conjectural and hypothetical injuries.”  Id. (internal citation and quotation omitted).  Plaintiffs did not show “that the alleged microtears are a safety hazard” and their experts did not contend the product was “dangerous.”  Id.  So, no injury.

They also did not prove causation:  “Evidence is lacking that St. Ives, and not other products or lifestyle or sun damage or any other factor, produced acne, wrinkles, inflammation, or loss of moisture (even if these were actionable safety hazards).”  Id.  The court considered the consumer complaints offered by plaintiffs to say nothing about causation, especially because they occurred at a low frequency.  Id.  The court also was not impressed by the plaintiffs’ for-litigation study:  “Plaintiff’s short-term clinical study does little to advance Plaintiff’s causation theory or prove their allegations of longer-term skin conditions.”  Id.  Bringing the evidence back to the context of alleged omissions of unreasonable safety hazards of the product from labeling, the court stated:

Again, Plaintiffs haven’t shown that micro-tears themselves (as distinct from potential resulting symptoms, such as wrinkles or acne) are counter to the product’s central function. Indeed, the Scrub was marketed as an exfoliant (Mot. at 25), which implies some intended resurfacing or abrasion. Plaintiffs do not address this issue or offer a description of the central function of a facial exfoliant. There is far too little for a reasonable jury to conclude that the presence of walnut shells neuters that undefined function.

Id.  Contraction notwithstanding, we think this is fine analysis.  As noted above, a little broader look would indicate that this product was not just marketed as an exfoliant, but one for deep exfoliation with the ground up walnut shells as a key ingredient.  People who might want to use a scrub—any scrub, pre-packaged or homemade—might consider in advance whether scrubbing the skin on their face with something with sufficient grittiness to accomplish a scrubbing is what they want.  That is not really a labeling issue.

To cap it off, the purported class reps did not have any injuries.  They just “assume[d] they suffered from micro-tears which they could neither see nor feel.”  Id. at *4.  We have seen uninjured class reps before and the need for a cognizable present injury clearly applies in a range of contexts, including medical monitoring and consumer fraud.  There is nothing nutty about that requirement.

 

A little over a year ago, we reported on a decision by Judge Rufe (E.D. Pa.) dismissing an Avandia heart attack case on the grounds of the learned intermediary rule (Utah law). All of the plaintiff’s claims boiled down to an alleged failure to warn, and that was a problem for the plaintiff, as the plaintiff’s proposed enhanced warning ended up being discredited by the science after the case was filed. Thus, even though the prescriber had stopped prescribing the product for a period of time after some adverse data came out, by the time of the prescriber’s deposition he testified that he felt comfortable with his decision to prescribe the medicine to the plaintiff. That evidence prompted the district court to bid adieu to the claims. Our defense hack hearts were gladdened by this result.

Those defense hack hearts are even more gladdened by the Third Circuit’s recent affirmance of the district court’s decision. In re: Avandia Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation (Siddoway), 2018 WL 6828423 (3d Cir. Dec. 28, 2018). The Third Circuit did not see fit to publish the affirmance in the West Reporter, but we see fit to publicize it.

As the Third Circuit reminds us, the plaintiff’s claims in Siddoway drew a causal link between prescriptions for Avandia prescribed in 2001 and 2002 and the plaintiff’s two heart attacks in 2003. The case hinges on what the prescribing doctor would have done, with regard to prescribing Avandia, if he had seen the warning the plaintiff preferred. The prescriber testified that he stopped prescribing the drug after learning of a 2007 meta-analysis of 42 clinical trials by Dr. Steven Nissen – a familiar name to many of us — that associated Avandia with an increased risk of heart attack. The prescriber testified that he would have “thought twice” and would have been “much more thoughtful” about prescribing Avandia and would not have prescribed the drug to the plaintiff “in the middle of all these heart attacks” if he knew this information in early 2003.

That testimony is mildly interesting, but does not really mean much because (a) the undisputed record shows that the actual prescription occurred one year before the plaintiff’s heart attacks, not “in the middle” of them, and (b) for the prescriber to say he would have been “much more thoughtful” and would have “thought twice” about prescribing Avandia if he knew in early 2003 the risk information that arose in 2007 does not cut it. The Third Circuit concluded that “the vague and highly speculative nature” of the prescriber’s testimony “suggests no concrete action and it is tied to hypothetical knowledge in 2003.” That is an important ruling, because it is exactly that sort of general, speculative, might’ve-thought-more stuff that plaintiff attorneys usually elicit from prescribers. The plaintiff lawyers then pack up their papers and smugly climb aboard their private jets, sure that they have staved off summary judgment. But they have not (or should not have) staved off summary judgment. Rather, they have walked right into it.

And then there is the inconvenient (for the plaintiff) fact that the prescriber in Siddoway also testified that if he had also known in 2001 and 2002 about the exculpatory information available in 2015, the time of his deposition, when the Food and Drug Administration removed the link between Avandia and an elevated risk of heart attack, he would have made the same choice to prescribe the drug to Siddoway. As we wrote a little more than a year ago, the result in Siddoway seemed “inevitable.” The Third Circuit saw it the same way.

It took us more than a week, but we finally put away the last serving pieces from last week’s family Hanukkah celebration.  We love Hanukkah, a festive holiday that celebrates victory over a tyrant king, a reclaimed temple, and a small quantity of oil that should have lasted only one night but that miraculously burned for eight nights.  In commemoration, we light candles for eight nights. And we use oil.  Lots and lots of oil.  Like, eight dozen potato latkes-worth of oil.   Though the holiday has far less religious significance than does Christmas, it is a time for family and gifts and food and song and celebrating the “miracle” of the bit of oil that improbably shed eight nights of light.

In a similar vein (pun intended), today we celebrate a very short, but surprisingly bountiful, decision out of the inferior vena cava (“IVC”) filter MDL pending in the Southern District of Indiana.  We love warnings causation, a potent doctrine too often rendered toothless by passive judges.  Not so in In re Cook, Inc. IVC Filters Marketing, Sales Practices, and Prods. Liab. Litig. (Tonya Brand), 2018 WL 6415585 (S.D. Ind. Dec. 5, 2018).   In the IVC filter MDL, the plaintiffs allege that the filters are prone to tilting, migrating, fracturing, and perforating the inferior vena cava.  In Brand, the defendants’ IVC filter was inserted in the plaintiff’s inferior vena cava to prevent pulmonary embolism during an upcoming spine surgery.  Two years later, the plaintiff began to experience pain on the inside of her right thigh.  Shortly thereafter, the plaintiff noticed something protruding from her thigh and pulled out a portion of her IVC filter.  The plaintiff was required to undergo open surgery to remove the rest of the filter.  The plaintiff sued, alleging that the instructions for use (“IFU”) that accompanied her filter did not adequately warn her physician of the risks associated with the filter.

The court explained that, under Georgia’s learned intermediary doctrine, the plaintiff could prevail on her warnings claims only by proving both that the warnings in the IFU were inadequate and that the inadequate warnings proximately caused her injuries.  The court emphasized, “Where the learned intermediary has actual knowledge of the substance of the alleged warning and would have taken the same course of action the plaintiff contends should have been provided, . . .  the causal link is broken and the plaintiff cannot recover.”  2018 WL 6415585 at *3.  The plaintiff’s physician testified that he was aware of all of the relevant risks when he implanted the Plaintiff’s IVC filter.  His knowledge of the risks was not based on the IFU; rather, it was based on his “education, training, and experience.”  Id.    Moreover, the doctor testified that he continued to use the defendant’s filter even after the plaintiff’s filter fractured, and that nothing about the plaintiff’s experience changed his mind about IVC filters in general or about the specific filter he used in the plaintiff.  The court held, “In the face of this devastating testimony, Plaintiff fails to raise a genuine issue of material fact on the proximate causation element” of her failure-to-warn claims.  Id.  at *4.

The plaintiff also argued that the defendants breached Georgia’s continuing post-sale duty to warn because they did not warn her physician, after he implanted her filter, of the filter’s propensity to  perforate and fracture.  She alleged that, if the defendants had provided such a warning, her doctor “potentially could have removed the filter before it fractured and pieces migrated throughout [her] body.” Id.   The court rejected this argument as well, holding that it was based on speculation and that the evidence, including the fact that the plaintiff’s physician continued to use the same filter in patients even after the plaintiff’s filter fractured, suggested that no post-placement warning would have prompted the doctor to retrieve the plaintiff’s filter any earlier.  As such, the plaintiff “fail[ed] to raise a genuine issue of material fact that any post-implant failure to warn caused her injuries.”   Id.   Because the plaintiff failed to sustain her burden of proving the causation element of her warnings claims, the court granted summary judgment for the defendants on those claims and on the claims that were based on them.

We make these same arguments over and over and over again in our medical device cases.  We often don’t prevail, even on clear records.  We wish that more courts had the clear-eyed approach to warnings causation that this MDL judge employed.  We will keep you posted on similar decisions.  And we still have a couple dozen potato latkes in the freezer, in case you are in our neighborhood.

 

Not terribly long ago, we had a series of posts—too many to link—that recounted court decisions rejecting efforts to impose liability on a generic manufacturer for the standard design and labeling claims and/or on an NDA holder for injuries allegedly caused by the use of the generic version of its drug. When the conjunctive held, we called it a one-two punch. We cannot say that we coined the term as used here, but we repeated it more than a few times. It has since become fairly standard for most claims against generic manufacturers to be held preempted by the frightful duo of Mensing and Bartlett. Save abominations like the T.H. case, the concept of innovator liability has largely been put to bed like a kid crashing after a sugar high. Still, plaintiffs sometimes try to impose liability on both the generic manufacturer whose drug they took and the branded manufacturer whose drug they did not.

When they do and a court rules, we pull the one-two punch from the back of our metaphor closet and see how it lands. In Preston v. Janssen Pharms., Inc., No. 158570/17, 2018 WL 5017045 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Oct. 12, 2018), the plaintiff claimed vision loss from her off-label use of the generic version of Topiramate, a well-established anti-convulsive. For more than a decade before she began her three year course, the label for the branded version contained warnings and precautions about ocular conditions that could result in permanent vision loss if untreated. After waiting more than two years to sue, she sued both the branded and generic manufacturers, claiming the records were unclear as to which drug she took for three years.

The branded manufacturer moved to dismiss, contending the complaint only asserted claims based on the generic drug that it did not make. It is not clear that the plaintiff tried to assert innovator liability in addition to claiming that the branded dug might have been used, but the court looked at the evidence and ruled on the merits. Because the evidence was clear that only the generic drug had been used, the next step to first punch was whether New York recognizes innovator liability. Citing the same cases we have before, the Preston court held that “named-brand drug manufacturers . . . cannot be held liable to the user of the generic form of that drug, since the manufacturer of the brand named drug owes no duty to the user of the drug’s generic form.” Id. at *3.

That takes us to the motion to dismiss of the generic manufacturer, the potential second punch. Plaintiff conceded, and the court accepted, that design claims are preempted because the generic manufacturer cannot change the drug’s design. Id. at *6. The plaintiff disputed that the warnings claim was preempted based on an alleged failure to update the generic label to match the branded drug’s label. For about eight months after the plaintiff started the generic drug, its label allegedly did not match. When the plaintiff alleged suffered her injuries, it did. A few years later, it allegedly did not match again. Plaintiff claimed that the later mismatch knocked out preemption for any warnings claim, but the court parried that argument. Following Mensing, the court held preempted claims based on any period when the warning of the generic drug matched, but allowed at the pleadings stage any claim based on the pre-injury period when there was an alleged failure to update. Id. at *5. So, the second punch did not quite land flush. It may be difficult for the plaintiff to sustain a claim about the warning when the plaintiff was first prescribed the drug when she kept receiving it when the warning was updated and her injuries allegedly developed during this later period. We suppose the warning claim might get kicked at the summary judgment stage. Preston also addressed the adequacy of pleading of various other claims that tend to be thrown into a product liability complaint, but she will have a chance to try to correct what was inadequately pled. Nothing too decisive or interesting about that, at least to us and at this stage.

Happy Halloween. We are very old school when it comes to this spooky holiday. Our pumpkins are orange, our candy bowl is full of Kit Kats, and our favorite horror movies are black and white Universal monster movies from the 1930’s and 40’s. To our ears, nothing screams Halloween quite like the great Una O’Connor screaming. See and listen here for examples of her wonderful performances in The Invisible Man and Bride of Frankenstein as a proper lady properly terrorized by creepy creatures. (O’Connor’s last film role was in Witness for the Prosecution as an ear-witness who resisted impeachment.) The Invisible Man, Bride of Frankenstein, and the original Frankenstein movie were all directed by James Whale, a man of enormous talents and humor, as well as enormous tortures. The Gods and Monsters film portrays Whale in his uneasy later days.

At this point, we cannot resist a Halloween joke, this one by Dana Gould. It goes like this: In this country we celebrate a holiday where frightening strangers come to our homes and take goodies from us. We call it Halloween. A month later, the next big holiday arrives – Thanksgiving. But Native Americans have another name for that holiday; they call it … Halloween.

Recently, we found ourselves screaming like Una O’Connor after a plaintiff filed a summary judgment motion against us. That plaintiff had the temerity to argue that her failure to warn claim was a foregone conclusion. Our screams arose from surprise, indignation, and, finally, laughter. With one brain tied behind our back, we could scare up a genuine factual dispute. Take a look at the report by our expert, who is very smart and says our warning was adequate and no reasonable doctor would have been misled. While you’re at it, read our Daubert motion, wherein we demonstrate that the plaintiff experts are about as scientific as Colin Clive in Frankenstein, dancing under the lightning and proclaiming, “It’s alive, alive!” Not quite. Our expert marshals the data and literature and says this about the lawsuit: “It’s dead, dead!”

Plaintiff motions for summary judgment are menacing, but miss the mark more often than not. That was certainly true in Nielsen v. Smith & Nephew Inc. et al., 2018 WL 5282901 (E.D. Wisc. Oct. 24, 2018). If anyone is screaming in this case, it is the judge, obviously pained by bad briefing. The plaintiff alleged that a hip replacement device fractured ten years after it had been implanted. The complaint’s main target was the distributor of the implants, because the manufacturer had gone under. There were 11 causes of action, but a defense summary judgment motion prompted the plaintiff to concede that almost all were pure hooey. Not a great start for the plaintiff. The only real motion fight was on the negligence claim against the distributor. Meanwhile, the plaintiff moved for summary judgment against the distributor on two grounds: (1) that the distributor of the hip devices could be liable under Wisconsin law because the manufacturer had gone bankrupt and lacked insurance coverage, and (2) the device lacked adequate warnings.

To put it mildly, the Nielsen judge was not impressed by the plaintiff’s motion. The plaintiff supported his motion by attaching letters and emails from the manufacturer’s counsel and insurer. That’s all inadmissible hearsay. Consequently, the solvency of the manufacturer — and, therefore, whether the distributor could be a proper defendant — would need to be decided at trial, not on summary judgment. The plaintiff’s summary judgment on product warnings fared no better. The plaintiff’s expert did, predictably, say the warnings should have been more explicit and petrifying. But just as predictably, the defense expert pronounced the warnings to be just peachy. We in the business call this sort of thing a factual dispute. That’s also what the court called it. It was not a close call, as far the court was concerned. The plaintiff “inexplicably declined to dispute any of [the distributor defendant’s] statements of additional facts.” Moreover, the plaintiff offered no relevant case law under Wisconsin’s product liability act. Rather, the plaintiff “seems content to leave it to the Court to find the law that supports his arguments. It will not do so.” Ouch.

The distributor defendant’s motion for summary judgment was more successful than the plaintiff’s motion. (Frankly, it is unimaginable how it could be less successful.) The plaintiff’s motion was premised on his expert’s opinion about what the warnings should have included. But the issue was the warning obligation of a “reasonable distributor.” Amazingly, the plaintiff’s expert addressed only manufacturer duties. Those duties were plainly inapplicable to the distributor defendant, which was “simply a middle man.” The complete failure of the plaintiff to join issue mightily annoyed the judge, who wrote as follows: “Such minimal effort, devoid of any citation to law or meaningful discussion of evidence, is an insult to the Court.” Double ouch. The plaintiff basically brought motions and then made no attempt to prove what he had to prove.

The distributor defendant did not cross-move on every claim. There is still a strict liability claim against it, and that claim will go to trial in November. But based on what happened with the cross motions for summary judgment, if we were the Nielsen plaintiff we would not be sanguine. Nope. We’d be scared.

It would seem to go without saying that for a defendant to be liable for the purported “common-law” claim of failure to report adverse events to the FDA, there must actually be some adverse events that needed to be reported.  One would think so, but certain California breast implant plaintiffs (yes, some still exist) would beg to differ – at least they did before the recent decision in Mize v. Mentor Worldwide LLC, No. BC649083, slip op. (Cal. Super. Oct. 1, 2018).

One problem that that current breast implant litigants face that their more numerous predecessors did not is preemption.  All that earlier litigation caused the FDA to upclassify breast implants to Class III, pre-market approved devices, and PMA means preemption.

In California, that also means the filing of half-baked, failure-to-report claims that no self-respecting plaintiff would otherwise bring, as a way to allege something that gets around preemption.  Trouble is, these breast implant plaintiffs can’t even allege that the defendant didn’t report any adverse incidents.  Even what plaintiff did allege was notably speculative:

Plaintiff now has alleged, however, that if [defendant] had reported additional adverse incidents subsequent to 2000, and if the FDA had made such incidents public, and if Plaintiff’s doctors had been aware of such reports, Plaintiff’s doctors might have provided an earlier diagnosis leading to earlier surgery to remove the implants and Plaintiff’s damages . . . might have been lessened.

Slip op. at 5. That’s a lot of “what ifs” piled on top of “what ifs,” but this plaintiff couldn’t even get to that.

There weren’t any unreported adverse events.

So the plaintiff tried to make them up.

The entire questionable “causal chain” wasn’t based on any known, but unreported, events at all, but rather on allegations about how studies were conducted:

[I]t is premised on [defendant’s] failure to report adverse incidents that were not detected because of how [defendant] conducted the studies rather than on a failure to report adverse incidents that actually occurred.

Id.  Even for a liberal jurisdiction, that was just too much.  There must be something that actually wasn’t reported.

Because Plaintiff has failed to allege facts showing that [defendant] failed to report actual adverse events that in fact occurred, the failure to warn (failure to report adverse events) claim is preempted because plaintiff has failed to allege how [defendant’s] actions in conducting these studies violated federal law.

Id.

While the Mize court “adopted the reasoning” of Ebrahimi v. Mentor Worldwide LLC, 2017 WL 4128976 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 15, 2017) – a case we discussed hereMize was really a step into fantasy beyond even Ebrahimi.  As pleaded, Ebrahimi at least involved allegations that (vaguely) alleged that events weren’t reported.  Mize didn’t.  She seems to have been alleging that the defendant was obligated to conduct studies in a way that maximized the number of reportable adverse events.  That “duty” is, of course, contrary to tort policy and medical ethics, both of which seek to reduce, not increase, product injuries.

The plaintiff in Mize also tried to allege a “manufacturing defect,” but that didn’t fare any better.  Lacking any direct evidence, plaintiff tried to rely on “allegations that supported . . . [a] 1998 Consent Decree.” Slip op. at 3.  But plaintiff’s implant wasn’t manufactured until at least two years after that decree, and the decree itself was “evidence of a promised change in practices,” so the decree could not be evidence of any defect in the device implanted in the plaintiff.  Id.  Again, simple logic seems beyond the plaintiff in Mize.

Finally, the Blog wishes to express its appreciation to Dustin Rawlin, of Tucker Ellis, and his team of, Peter Choate, Monee Hanna and Allison Burke, who not only won the case, but were thoughtful enough to send it along to us.  Keep up the good work.

It’s been a long road.  Well after product liability litigation over Accutane and inflammatory bowel disease (“IBD”) had been thoroughly debunked everywhere else in the nation, such litigation lived on in New Jersey – for year after interminable year.  First, a number of trials occurred, but literally every verdict for the plaintiffs was reversed on appeal.  Here are some of our posts on that phase of the litigation.  Then, once the trial court had had enough and began dismissing large numbers of cases, the intermediate appellate court reversed those decisions, too.  Here are some of our posts on that phase of the litigation.

Ultimately, it was up to the New Jersey Supreme Court to step in and figure everything out.  We blogged recently about it reversing the Appellate Division and entering a landmark decision on the admissibility of expert testimony in New Jersey.  See In re Accutane Litigation, ___ A.3d ___, 2018 WL 3636867 (N.J. Aug. 1, 2018).  Well, the defendant went back to the well on the adequacy of the drug’s warnings, and yesterday it rang the bell again.  In In re Accutane Litigation, ___ A.3d ___, 2018 WL 4761403, slip op. (N.J. Oct. 3, 2018), the court unanimously reversed the Appellate Division and affirmed the grant of summary judgment against another 532 cases brought mostly by litigation tourists.  “Of the 532 plaintiffs, 18 are New Jersey residents and 514 are residents of 44 other jurisdictions.”  Id. at *5.

The trial court had told the tourist plaintiffs that they were stuck with the consequences of choosing to descend on New Jersey like a plague of locusts – New Jersey law applied, including the presumption of adequacy that the state’s Product Liability Act (“PLA”) gives to FDA-approved warnings.  The warnings were adequate as a matter of law because “plaintiffs failed to overcome the presumption of adequacy.”  2018 WL 4761403 at *5.  The Appellate Division held that the law of each of the plaintiffs’ home states, 45 states altogether, governed, and reversed summary judgment under the laws of most of those states (all but eight).  Id.

Choice of Law

The New Jersey Supreme Court first said “you’ve got to be kidding” to the Appellate Division’s multifarious choice of law result.  The plaintiffs made their bed and thus had to sleep in it:

[W]e hold that New Jersey has the most significant interests, given the consolidation of the 532 cases for MCL [multi-county litigation] purposes. . . .  The aggregation of hundreds of cases under MCL allows the resolution of common issues of law.   A trial judge cannot be expected to gain a mastery of the law of forty-five different jurisdictions.  Construing New Jersey’s PLA is challenging enough.  New Jersey’s interest in consistent, fair, and reliable outcomes cannot be achieved by applying a diverse quilt of laws to so many cases that share common issues of fact.

Accutane, 2018 WL 4761403 at *6 (summarizing ruling).  See Id. at *15-20 (lengthy discussion of rationale for applying New Jersey law to all cases).

The court “proceed[ed] under the assumption” that true conflicts existed – that “application of New Jersey’s PLA may lead to an outcome different from the application of the laws of those other jurisdictions.”  Id. at *17 (citation and quotation marks omitted).  Even so, the most “significant relationship” for choice of law purposes in all cases was New Jersey.  First, as to alleged failures to warn, the corporation’s principal place of business “is where the alleged conduct causing the injury occurred − the manufacturing and labeling of [the product].”  Id. at *18 (citation and quotation marks omitted).

Second, in mass torts, “ordinary choice-of-law practices should yield in suits consolidating large numbers of claims and that courts should apply a single law in such cases.”  Id. at *17 (citation and quotation marks omitted).

The two most significant Restatement factors in this MCL matter are . . . “certainty, predictability and uniformity of result” and . . . “ease in the determination and application of the law to be applied”.  Applying a single standard to govern the adequacy of the label warnings in the 532 individual cases will ensure predictable and uniform results − rather than disparate outcomes among similarly situated plaintiffs.

Id. at *20 (discussing factors under Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws §6 (1971)).  Litigants cannot expect “[a] single judge . . . to gain a mastery of the laws of forty-five jurisdictions.”  Id.  If mass tort plaintiffs don’t want New Jersey law to apply they should “bring suit in the state where they reside.”  Id.  Under this new, mass-tort-specific application of choice of law, the plaintiffs in Accutane were stuck with New Jersey substantive law, which “is not as beneficial to their cause as the laws of other jurisdictions.”  Id.

We recommend that defense counsel study the court’s choice of law rationale.  It is no accident that, in its discussion of choice of law, the court cited Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court, 137 S. Ct. 1773 (2017).  Accutane, 2018 WL 4761403 at *20.  Save for Delaware, more major pharmaceutical manufacturers are probably “at home” in New Jersey than anywhere else.  Thus, if the other side in the future chooses to congregate in New Jersey, they’ll have to put up with New Jersey substantive law, at least if the defendant makes motions in the aggregate.  Query, however, if the practicality rationale still applies in a single “bellwether” case where the alternative is application of one other state’s law, rather than the multi-state muddle the court faced in Accutane.  We think defendants have another opportunity to exercise some strategic discretion here.

Presumption of Adequacy

On the merits, the Supreme Court agreed with the trial court, that the defendant’s warnings were adequate as a matter of law under the PLA’s presumption of adequacy of FDA-approved labeling.  Initially, we get another shout out for the learned intermediary rule from the court:

[T]he PLA codifies what is commonly referred to as the learned intermediary doctrine – . . . that the physician acts as the intermediary between the manufacturer and the patient.  The prescribing physician − as a learned intermediary − generally is in the best position to advise the patient of the benefits and risks of taking a particular drug to treat a medical condition.  Under the learned intermediary doctrine, a pharmaceutical manufacturer generally discharges its duty to warn the ultimate user of prescription drugs by supplying physicians with information about the drug’s dangerous propensities.

Accutane, 2018 WL 4761403 at *21 (citations and quotation marks omitted).  We’re always on the lookout for high court reaffirmations of the learned intermediary rule.

As to the statutory presumption of the adequacy of FDA warnings, the court reached the right result, but not before a lengthy detour based on a questionable source (a law review article written by plaintiff-side professional expert David Kessler) and the infamous decision in Wyeth v. Levine, 555 U.S. 555 (2009).  2018 WL 4761403 at *21-24.  The upshot is a ruling on how the PLA’s “rebuttable” presumption of adequacy can be rebutted:

[T]he rebuttable presumption of adequacy attaching to an FDA-approved drug label is overcome when a plaintiff presents clear and convincing evidence that a manufacturer knew or should have known, based on newly acquired information, of a causal association between the use of the drug and “a clinically significant hazard” and that the manufacturer failed to update the label accordingly.

Id. at 26.  Notably, the substantive aspects of this rebuttal standard are based on federal regulations, including the notorious Levine “CBE regulation,” 21 C.F.R. §314.70.  This result leaves little daylight between the PLA presumption and implied preemption under Levine, except for the burden of proof.  Preemption is also based on “newly acquired information” – specifically the lack of it.  So any claim that would be preempted in other jurisdictions because plaintiffs can’t point to anything new that the FDA hadn’t already considered is independently barred in New Jersey by the PLA presumption.  However, while defendants bear the burden of proving preemption, in New Jersey the PLA presumption means that plaintiffs bear the burden of proving the presence of the necessary “new” information, and must do with clear and convincing evidence, which Accutane defined as “evidence so clear, direct, weighty in terms of quality, and convincing as to cause one to come to a clear conviction of the truth of the precise facts in issue.”  Id. at *26 (citation and quotation marks omitted).

The Accutane court added “one caveat” – regardless of anything else:

A manufacturer that acts in a reasonable and timely way to update its label warnings with the FDA, in accordance with its federal regulatory responsibilities, will receive the protection of the rebuttable presumption.

Id.

The Accutane court acknowledged that this “is a standard protective of responsible drug manufacturers.”  Id.

The PLA’s rebuttable presumption of adequacy that attaches to label warnings gives pharmaceutical companies the protection necessary to research and develop the drugs that will improve and extend the lives of people around the world.  The presumption of adequacy protects manufacturers from unmeritorious lawsuits.

Id.

Plaintiffs’ Failure of Proof

Finally, Accutane applied the law to the facts, and found that none of the 532 plaintiffs came close to overcoming the statutory presumption of adequate warnings.  “[M]ultiple warning tools,” the package insert, the patient package insert, the medication guide and “blister packaging,” all warned about the possibility of IBD.  Id. at *27.  “Association” was the proper description of the drug’s relationship to the plaintiffs’ injuries; “cause” would have been too strong.  Defendant “had reports that some patients, after taking [the drug], developed symptoms of IBD.  That one followed the other does not prove cause and effect.”  Id. (citing Accutane, 2018 WL 3636867, at *8-10).  Plaintiffs offered only “isolated examples” that had been “culled from the voluminous discovery.”  Id. at *27-28.  “To be sure,” that evidence “is not clear and convincing evidence that [defendant] knew or should have known that the use of the word ‘associated’ was inadequate.”  Id. at *28.

Nor is there any evidence that [defendant] avoided necessary label changes for economic reasons.  [Defendant’s] marketing personnel certainly expressed an interest in Accutane’s financial success; it would have been surprising if it were otherwise.  However, there is no evidence that [defendant’s] financial interest in Accutane’s success led it to withhold necessary IBD-related warnings.

Id.

*          *          *          *

This latest Accutane decision is a great result and should finally drive a stake through this vampire of a litigation.  Still, a couple aspects of this ruling give us pause.  As for choice of law, the application of multiple states’ laws was one means of defending against class actions, since doing so defeated both proportionality and manageability.  Many other reasons for rejecting class actions in personal injury litigation remain, but like practically everything else about choice of law, this could be a two-edged sword.  Second, the continued willingness of New Jersey courts to craft extra-statutory “exceptions” to the New Jersey legislature’s presumption of adequacy of FDA warnings bothers us doctrinally.  The statute says what it says, and we think that – as with all other statutory provisions (including preemption clauses) – courts should enforce statutes as written, and not use subsequent developments to change what the legislature did.  Short of a constitutional issue, courts should not encroach on the legislature’s prerogative to draft legislation.

A couple of weeks ago, the Drug and Device Law Dog Walker texted us midday to report that a coyote had been spotted in our suburban neighborhood and that we should be vigilant when the Drug and Device Law Little Rescue Dogs were out in the yard. We scoffed, insisting that it must have been the neighborhood fox, known to all for years (we live right next to Valley Forge National Park).  The conversation went back and forth for a while, eventually including descriptions of larger size, different coloration, and much longer legs than the fox’s.  We remained unconvinced.  Eventually, our neighborhood e-mail chain came alive with close-up photos of what was undeniably a coyote, taken a scant hundred yards away in a neighbor’s back yard.   Because we are law nerds, it occurred to us that coyotes are just like causation:  an expert can assert a causal link, and assert it again, but, ultimately, there has to be evidence to support the assertion.

As the court agreed in today’s case, a nice (albeit unreported) affirmance of a HUMIRA summary judgment victory out of Maryland’s Court of Special Appeals. In Larson v. Abbott Labs., Inc., 2018 WL 3479236 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. July 19, 2018), the plaintiff, a highly-educated space engineer who had been diagnosed as HIV-positive years before, alleged that the defendant’s psoriasis medication caused him to become sufficiently immunocompromised that he contracted progressive multifocal leukoencephaly (PML).  PML is an often-fatal viral brain disease that left the plaintiff physically disabled and cognitively impaired, and unable to care for himself.  PML is caused by a virus that that is present in the bodies of most adults in the United States but that generally remains inactive except in severely immunocompromised people. HUMIRA’s prescribing information warned that medications of its class had the potential to affect defenses against infection, and that the safety and efficacy of the medication in immunosuppressed patients had not been evaluated.  The warnings did not specifically mention HIV patients.

The plaintiff had been diagnosed as HIV-positive five years before he took HUMIRA. During that time, he treated his plaque psoriasis with home remedies.  When it worsened, he asked his treater about treatment with HUMIRA.  She sought information from the defendant, then referred the plaintiff to a physician who concluded from the information that, because the plaintiff’s HIV was well controlled and that he was not severely immunocompromised (and because a tuberculosis skin test came back negative), he was an appropriate candidate for the medication.  What was unknown to the doctor – and apparently to the plaintiff – was that recent lab results revealed progression of his HIV disease.   (The plaintiff’s infectious disease specialist had attempted to contact him with the results, but he hadn’t responded by the time he began his HUMIRA treatment.) Within three months after beginning his treatment, he began exhibiting headaches and extreme fatigue.  His condition worsened, and he was diagnosed with PML shortly thereafter.

The plaintiff filed suit, asserting the usual product liability claims. His primary causation expert was a “highly-regarded infections disease specialist with significant experience” treating HIV-positive patients. Larson, 2018 WL 3479236 at *7.  The defendant moved to exclude the expert’s opinion.  The trial court granted the motion, and, because the plaintiff was left without expert causation testimony, the court granted summary judgment for the defendant.  The plaintiff appealed.

The plaintiff presented several questions for the appellate court’s determination, including questions related to the trial court’s holdings about the adequacy of the product’s warnings. The appellate court found that it needed to consider only one question – whether the trial court erred in barring the testimony of the plaintiff’s general and specific causation experts and granting summary judgment – because a negative answer to that question obviated the need to consider any of the others.  In the process, the court rejected the plaintiff’s argument that the it needed to address the adequacy of the warnings whether or not the plaintiff could establish medical causation.  As the court explained,

Generally, the “proximate causation element” in a failure to warn case against a pharmaceutical manufacturer is established by proof that the allegedly inadequate warning was a substantial contributing factor to the plaintiff’s injury. . . . In certain product liability cases, however, such as the case before us, the parties disagree over whether sufficient evidence exists to show that the product, itself, can cause the specific injury alleged and, therefore, whether the manufacturer had a duty to provide different or additional warning to prevent the injury. . . . . What is often termed “general causation” is present “when a substance is capable of causing a given disease. . . . General causation, therefore, relates to the element of duty — i.e., whether the risk of the type of injury the plaintiff suffered was reasonably foreseeable, and therefore, whether the manufacturer had a duty to warn the prescribing physician in the first place. . . . Evidence demonstrating [medical] causation . . . must exist independent of whether the manufacturer’s allegedly defective warning label was a proximate cause of the injury. In other words, evidence of general and specific causation was necessary in this case to establish [the defendant’s] duty to warn . . . .

Id., at *9-10. And so the court proceeded to determine whether the trial court had erred in excluding the plaintiff’s causation experts. The plaintiff’s causation theory was that “the immunosuppressant effect of HUMIRA permitted the ‘unmasking’ of [the virus that causes PML], despite the fact that” the plaintiff was not as immunosuppressed as HIV-positive patients who develop PML” even in light of his most recent lab results.  Id.  Maryland is a Frye state.  Under that standard, as the court explained, an expert’s opinion is admissible only if the basis of the opinion is “shown to be generally accepted as reliable within the expert’s particular scientific field.” Id. at *12 (internal punctuation and citations omitted). The standard applies equally to new scientific techniques and to accepted methods applied to support novel theories.

With respect to plaintiff’s main causation expert, the trial court had held that his causation conclusions “[had] not been sufficiently tested and proven to qualify as reliable forensic conclusions rather than scientific hypothesis.” Id. at *13.   The expert’s primary contention was that, “in addition to general HIV disease progression, some additional functional immune deficit must be present for PML to occur,” and that HUMIRA caused that deficit in the plaintiff. Id.   The trial court held that the expert had not considered other potential contributing factors, and that he could not provide a sufficient factual basis for his opinion that HUMIRA was “the missing link.” Id. at *14.

The appellate court stated that, “to constitute a sufficient basis for his general causation opinion, Dr. Jacobson needed to provide support for his contention that” the class of drugs was “known to be associated with an increased risk of PML” at the time the plaintiff took the drug. Id. The plaintiff contended that this support was to be found in the expert’s reference to the drug’s black-box warning about opportunistic pathogens coupled with “well-documented reports of PML occurring in patients who had received” this class of drugs.” Id. But, the court pointed out, the expert did not discuss the “well-documented reports of PML” or explain how the reports helped form the basis of his opinion.   The plaintiff also asserted that the expert relied on “peer reviewed studies, reviews of other biologicals, and FDA Adverse Event Reporting data,” but, the court found, he did not explain how the existence of case reports demonstrated a causal connection, and, the one article he cited related to a drug with a different mechanism of action than HUMIRA’s.

The court echoed the trial court’s holding that there “is sound scientific reasoning to suggest that [the drug’s immunosuppressive effect] could be a factor, but it falls short of showing with any degree of reliability that it is a factor, much less a substantial contributing cause” of the plaintiff’s PML. Id. at *15 (emphasis in original).   The court also reviewed the depositions of the plaintiff’s other experts, and held that, although they “believed that [the plaintiff’s] use of HUMIRA likely contributed to his immunological decline, none could provide a sufficient factual basis for that conclusion. . . . Indeed, [one] conceded that a scientifically reliable causal association” had not been established, id., and another stated “more unequivocally that he believed that [the plaintiff’s increased immunosuppression]” occurred “independent of HUMIRA, representing progression of his HIV disease.”  The same expert discussed an article establishing “the theoretical possibility” that the class of drugs was associated with PML, but explained that “it [didn’t] necessarily establish causation . . . .” Id.

The court commented that it agreed with the trial court that “it may well be that additional research will confirm some or all of [the expert’s] hypotheses. What is determinative in this case, however, is that those causal theories have not been established now nor were they established” when the plaintiff took the drug.  The court also acknowledged that there were ethical obstacles to conducting controlled studies on HIV-positive individuals, and that, because PML is a rare disease, “the amount of epidemiological data that could be useful is limited.”  But this didn’t excuse the experts’ theoretical causation opinions.  The court concluded, “We hold that [the plaintiff’s] experts’ opinions were not grounded on an adequate supply of data, and, therefore, the circuit court properly excluded their testimony.” Id. at *16,

We love a good expert exclusion. BTW, the coyote pictures are really cool.  E-mail us, and we will send them to you.

 

 

Today’s case has a little bit of everything – choice of law, statutory compliance, alternative design, warnings causation. So, the decision is a bit of “grab bag” in addition to being a “mixed bag.”

The case is Hyde v. C.R. Bard, Inc., 2018 WL 3586404 (D. Ariz. Jul. 26, 2018). To begin with, plaintiff voluntarily withdrew several claims – manufacturing defect, breach of express warranty, failure to recall, and breach of implied warranty. Id. at *2. Defendant did not move for summary judgment on negligent design defect, negligence per se, or punitive damages – so those claims remain. That left failure to warn, misrepresentation and fraud, and strict liability design defect. Of those, only strict liability design defect survived. Id.

The court first had to decide which state’s law applied. Plaintiff was living in Wisconsin when she had the IVC filter implanted but did not experience any complications until after moving to Nevada. Plaintiff argued that Nevada law should apply as the location where the injury occurred. The court disagreed. Wisconsin, the forum state, applies a two-step analysis for choice of law questions. First, are one state’s contacts so minimal that applying that state’s law would be “officious intermeddling.” Id. The court found both states to have significant contacts with the case and so moved on to step two. This consists of the analysis of 5 factors. The court found three factors (maintenance of interstate order, simplification of the judicial task, and application of the better rule of law) to be neutral. Id. at *3-4. And the remaining two favored Wisconsin. As to predictability, the IVC filter was sold in Wisconsin, implanted in Wisconsin, and defendant’s interactions with the implanting surgeon took place in Wisconsin. So, defendant could reasonably expect Wisconsin law to apply to any products liability claims arising from the use of the filter. Id. at *4. As to the forum state’s interest, Wisconsin “has a strong interest in having its laws applied to corporations transacting business with the state. Id.

 Wisconsin’s product liability statute provides a presumption that a product is not defective if it complied with relevant standards or specifications approved by a state or federal agency – such as the FDA. Defendant therefore argued that because the IVC filter was cleared by the FDA via the 510(k) process, the presumption applied. The court however, refused to apply the statutory compliance presumption because the 510(k) process is not a safety review and therefore defendant was not entitled to the non-defectiveness presumption. Id. at *6.

Another defense to strict liability claims in Wisconsin is that the harm was caused by a known and inherent risk. Defendants argued, citing to publications, FDA documents, and plaintiff’s surgeon’s testimony, that the very complication suffered by plaintiff was well known in the medical community. Id. at *7. Plaintiff countered that while the general risk may be known, the fact that defendant’s filters had a higher adverse event rate than other filters was not known. The court decided that any challenge as to incident rates is a triable issue of fact for the jury. Id.

Turning to plaintiff’s burden of proof, to maintain a claim for strict liability design or warning defect, plaintiff has to establish that the risk of harm could have been “reduced or avoided” with a “reasonable alternative design or warning.” Id.   In this case, plaintiff’s expert pointed to anchors that were added to other of the defendant’s IVC filters as a specific and available alternative design. Defendant argued that plaintiffs in the litigation claim that those other IVC filters also are defective. Essentially plaintiff relied on an allegedly defective design as the alternative to the allegedly defective design at issue. Id. That feels like it should be a non-starter. But the court said that the alternative design only has to “reduce” the risk of harm. Id. So, if the alternative is slightly less defective that appears to be enough. Again, a bit of a head scratcher.

Moving on to failure to warn, the court found plaintiff’s claim failed for lack of evidence of causation. The court skirted the issue of learned intermediary, on which the Wisconsin Supreme Court has not ruled, finding that plaintiff identified no evidence that either plaintiff or her surgeon would have changed his/her decision regarding implanting the device. Id. at *8-9. In fact, plaintiff’s surgeon testified that he didn’t recall which filter was used or who made the decision to use that filter. He further testified that he trusted the FDA, the device was meeting the expectations of the FDA, and he wouldn’t have deferred implanting the filter where it was medically necessary. Id. at *9. Put all together, there was nothing in the record to establish that a warning about greater risks would have affected either the surgeon’s or the plaintiff’s decision to use the product.

That same rationale carried over to plaintiff’s misrepresentation and fraud claims where reliance is an essential element. Plaintiff never received any independent information from the defendant nor did she point to any information from the defendant on which her surgeon relied. Id. at *10.

So, the case remains although substantially cutback. Just two quick observations from reading between and outside the lines of the opinion as to negligence per se, on which defendant did not move for summary judgment. First, if 510(k) clearance doesn’t involve “safety,” how can negligence per se apply? It would seem that following the court’s logic, the 510(k) process does not rise to the level of a substantive standard of care that can support plaintiff’s negligence per se claim. Second, back in March we reported on another partial summary judgment win in the Bard IVC Filter MDL. In that case, this same court granted summary judgment on negligence per se finding that the claim could not be based on alleged FDCA violations because there is no private right of action to enforce the Act. See prior post here. From an outsider’s perspective, it feels like negligence per se should be out of this case as well.

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

We truly dislike decisions that find that claims of failure to report adverse events to the FDA are non-preempted, parallel violation failure to warn claims. Failure to report claims are not parallel.  Federal law does not require warnings to plaintiff or her doctors.  State law does not require warnings to the FDA. In the absence of a state-law duty to make reports to a government agency, a failure to report claim is an improper private attempt to enforce the FDCA. It is a claim that should not survive either express or implied preemption.

But, some courts do allow it, such as Bull v. St. Jude Medical, Inc., 2018 WL 3397544 (E.D. Pa. Jul. 12, 2018). Now, we think the Bull court is overstating when it says “most courts” to have considered a failure to report claim have found it to be a parallel claim. We refer you to our PMA Preemption scorecard which clearly shows this is an issue on which courts are split. Nor is the reasoning of the opinion anything new. Defendant had a duty under state law to warn physicians and a duty under federal law to comply with adverse event reporting requirements and those two requirements aren’t in conflict with each other. Id. at *8. But just because two roads don’t intersect doesn’t mean they are parallel.

And, because Pennsylvania doesn’t recognize a state law failure to report claim, any such claim exists solely as a result of the FDCA and therefore should also be impliedly preempted. Again, having concluded there are parallel duties, Bull also concludes no implied preemption. The court found that plaintiff alleged a valid state law failure to warn claim that was based on a failure to comply with its federal duty to report adverse events to the FDA. Id. at *9.

We don’t like those conclusions, but it’s also not the first time we’ve seen them. Where we usually take solace is that more often than not a finding that a failure to report claim is not preempted is followed by a finding that it is also not adequately pleaded. We refer you back again to the PMA Preemption scorecard for the many, many decisions reaching that conclusion. The primary reason the claim fails TwIqbal – failure to sufficiently plead causation.

Unfortunately, the court in Bull gave plaintiff a pass on pleading physician-specific warning causation. The complaint “does not even allege that [plaintiff’s] doctors consulted the [FDA adverse event] database, or any other source of . . . adverse event reports, when making their treatment decisions.” Id. But the court found that unnecessary. Instead, all that was required was an allegation that prior to the implantation of the device in plaintiff, defendant failed to disclose adverse events that if disclosed may have led her doctor’s not to use the device. Id.

That shouldn’t be enough. Even Stengel v. Medtronic Inc., 704 F.3d 1224 (9th Cir. 2013) (en banc), which allowed a failure to report claim, acknowledged that causation is a particularly problematic hurdle for plaintiffs:

Because they predicate their claim on [defendant’s] reporting duty to the FDA, as they must to avoid express preemption, [plaintiffs] face a causation hurdle that would not otherwise exist.  To prevail, they will ultimately have to prove that if [defendant] had properly reported the adverse events to the FDA as required under federal law, that information would have reached [the prescribing] doctors in time to prevent [plaintiffs’] injuries.

Stengel, 704 F.3d at 1234-35 (concurring opinion). Therefore, the causal chain requires both that the FDA would do something differently (such as make the adverse events public), and that that hypothetical action by the FDA would have caused the prescriber, in turn, to change his/her prescribing decision in some way that would have prevented the claimed injuries. Plaintiff’s allegations in Bull, as set forth in the opinion, are much too vague to support a plausible causation claim.

And the analysis shouldn’t have stopped there. The opinion actually sets forth sufficient facts that were pleaded to support reaching just the opposite conclusion on causation.

First, would the FDA would have done something differently? Plaintiff had the device implanted in 2010 and began experiencing problems with it in 2015. Bull at *5. Per the facts alleged, in 2009 the FDA conducted an inspection of defendant’s manufacturing facility. Id. at *2. The report of that inspection included information about Medical Device Reports (MDRs) that were either untimely or not submitted to the FDA. Id. at *3. It also included an analysis of MDRs both at the company and within the FDA’s database. Id. at *2-3. So, what the facts establish is that the FDA became aware of these adverse events a year before plaintiff received the device and at no time prior to plaintiff’s surgery did the FDA require defendant to take any further action to warn physicians beyond the existing labeling and warnings. So there is no causal nexus between the alleged failure to report and plaintiff’s injury.

Moreover, to the extent plaintiff relies on a 2011 FDA Safety Officer Report and a 2012 483 Inspection, those took place after plaintiff was implanted with the device and if they involve allegedly unreported events after 2010 – they can have no bearing on causation. To establish causation plaintiff should be required to prove (and plead) that had the adverse events been properly reported to the FDA, the information would have reached plaintiff’s physician in time to prevent the alleged injuries.

Second, would plaintiff’s doctors have done something differently? Well, because the FDA didn’t take action the answer is there is nothing to trigger plaintiff’s doctors doing anything different either. But, there is also the added fact that in this case after the events were reported and the FDA did require some additional warnings and even after the FDA recalled the device – plaintiff’s doctors did not explant the device. Id. at *5. While we are only privy to what’s reported in the complaint, we think the second link in the causal chain is likely broken as well.

We have a hard time imagining this case getting beyond summary judgment on causation based on what we see as the regulatory history from the opinion. We’ve talked in greater detail about this causation hurdle in failure to report cases here. So, while defendant lost at this stage, we are optimistic about a win in the future.