Professor Ben Zipursky (Fordham) just published a guest post over at Torts Prof Blog ruminating about why the Supreme Court found preemption in the context of medical devices that had undergone premarket approval in Riegel v. Medtronic, but did not find preemption in the context of prescription drugs on the facts of Wyeth v. Levine.
Now that our birthday celebration is behind us, it’s back to work.
Consider taking a look at these two items recently posted on other blogs:
First, the Civil Procedure & Federal Courts Blog collects in one place scholarship analyzing the Supreme Court’s decision in Wyeth v. Levine. Whether or not you have a taste for
Everyone in the world – at least everyone who reads our blog – knows that the Supreme Court rejected preemption in Wyeth v. Levine, in large part because the regulatory history of Phenergan (as read by the majority) did not clearly establish a conflict between the plaintiff’s warning defect claim and the FDA’s regulatory
Richard Epstein (Chicago and NYU) has this piece — arguing that Congress should maintain preemption in the context of PMA-approved medical devices and extend similar protection to prescription drugs — at Forbes.com.
Catherine Sharkey recently posted her forthcoming article in the Duke Law Journal, “Federalism Accountability: ‘Agency-Forcing’ Measures,” at SSRN. Here’s the obligatory link.
The easy part of our work today is telling you the gist of Sharkey’s thesis. We’ll simply reproduce the abstract of the article:
“This Article takes as its starting point the ‘agency
That headline is correct, except for the exclamation point.
The Third Circuit just issued its decision in Colacicco v. Apotex, on remand from the Supreme Court for reconsideration in light of Wyeth v. Levine.
The Third Circuit decided not to issue a new decision immediately, but instead remanded the cases to the two relevant trial
The Solicitor General just submitted a letter to the Third Circuit in Colacicco v. Apotex giving the government’s position on the preemption question in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Wyeth v. Levine.
The SG says that the FDA “has not yet conducted the sort of reexamination of various preemption issues following the Supreme
This post was written by Herrmann alone. I’m coming to the defense of my co-conspirator, Bexis.
As soon as the Supreme Court decided Wyeth v. Levine, we published a post analyzing the implications of the case. We represent drug companies in product liability cases, so we naturally weren’t delighted by the result. We did, however,
In his regular FindLaw.com column, Professor Anthony Sebok writes that Wyeth v. Levine can be read either of two ways: Preemption might exist if a drug company (1) “had submitted to the FDA exactly the warning required by the Vermont jury,” or (2) “had proven that the FDA rejected the reasoning behind the warning required
One silver lining from the severe pruning that prescription drug preemption took in Wyeth v. Levine, is that there may now be less incentive to expand the common-law liability of pioneer manufacturers in generic drug cases – something we’ve discussed in posts that readers can find under the “product identification” “generic drug” and “Conte”