We recently read an editorial in The New York Times advocating lawsuits as a means of regulating an industry. Politicians are gripped by paralysis – so the argument goes – thus we must entrust the issue to litigators, smart judges, and good-hearted jurors. After all, hadn’t years of product liability litigation resulted in safer
Class actions hold our interest, even though we do not see them all that often anymore in the drug and medical device space. Maybe we are the rubbernecking motorists who can’t resist slowing down to gaze at someone else’s fender bender. Maybe we are the children at the zoo who rush to the reptile house
Just two days ago, Bexis lowered the boom on the Third Circuit’s recent decision in Cottrell v. Alcon Labs, ___ F.3d ___, 2017 WL 4657402 (3d Cir. Oct. 18, 2017). In a 2-1 decision, the Cottrell court permitted the plaintiffs to proceed on the notion that making eye drop drips bigger than they have
Last month we brought you word of an excellent result (preemption) in a ridiculous case − a class action claiming that the drops in eye-drops are too big. That decision was in accord with an earlier decision likewise dismissing such claims on preemption grounds. See Thompson v. Allergan USA, Inc., 993 F. Supp.2d 1007
We’re pleased to report the demise of a plaintiff’s firm’s attempt to punish the FDA for rejecting the firm’s attempt to force the agency to create evidence helpful to plaintiffs in litigation. The ploy began in 2012, when “a law firm that represents hundreds” of plaintiffs in prescription drug mass tort litigation “on a contingency fee basis” “filed a citizen petition with the [FDA].” Sheller, P.C. v. U.S. Dep’t of HHS, 119 F. Supp.3d 364, 368 (E.D. Pa. 2015). Plaintiff sought agency action that it could, in turn, parade before juries in the underlying mass tort, specifically: “that the FDA immediately revoke the [relevant] indication for the . . . [d]rugs” at issue or alternatively “require that labeling for those drugs include a black box warning based on the lack of sufficient data to prove their safety.” Id. In addition, the plaintiff law firm sought to enlist the FDA in evading a confidentiality order (originally agreed to by the law firm) that protected discovery which the defendant in the underlying litigation had provided. Id.
So far, so what? While annoying, attempts of this nature to embroil the FDA in mass tort prescription medical product litigation are part of the other side’s play book. (((Bexis))) recalls similar machinations during the Bone Screw litigation whereby the plaintiffs did everything they could (ultimately unsuccessfully) to prevent the Agency from adding to those products’ labeling previously off-label uses that had become the medical standard of care – because the Bone Screw plaintiffs’ litigation strategy was based on the procedures in question being off label.
The Bone Screw plaintiffs failed, 63 Fed. Reg. 40025-41 (FDA Jul. 27, 1998) – as did the law firm plaintiff in Sheller (119 F. Supp.3d at 368) – since the FDA normally has little patience for the junk science that the other side routinely peddles in mass tort litigation. The plaintiff law firm in Sheller would have been off not filing the petition at all, since according to plaintiff, “the FDA decision to deny its petition “has been used as the basis to assert federal preemption and other [defense] arguments against [plaintiff’s] clients in [mass-tort] litigation.” Id.
No kidding. That’s the down side this sort of litigation strategy. Attempts to involve the FDA in litigation have the risk that, if one loses, the FDA’s actions can create a positive narrative for the other side.
But plaintiffs believe in the doctrine of “heads I win; tails you lose.”
So in Sheller the plaintiff law firm attempted to gin up, from their failed strategy, a tort cause of action – not an administrative claim – against the FDA. Talk about a bootstrap. The plaintiff law firm was the one that involved the FDA in the first place. The bizarre theory of liability postulated that, if the FDA wouldn’t cooperate in creating pro-plaintiff evidence/themes in the underlying litigation, that required the plaintiff law firm to work harder and spend more money to come up with something that juries might believe. So the law firm sued the FDA to recover its purportedly increased litigation costs:
Plaintiff [claims] . . . that the FDA denial of [its] citizen petition increased [its] costs in litigating [because] . . . the defendant . . . has argued that the FDA’s denial of the Petition proves, as a matter of law, that the [drug’s] label is adequate. . . . Plaintiff argues that it must continue to expend resources in defending against that argument, and it faces the risk that a Court will accept it, lowering [plaintiff’s] contingent fee recovery.
Sheller, 119 F. Supp.3d at 369-70 (quotation marks omitted).
Continue Reading Bootstrapped Claim Against the FDA Gets the Boot
Ever since we first waded into the issue of “duty to supply” back in 2007 in connection with the litigation that produced Abigail Alliance for Better Access to Developmental Drugs v. von Eschenbach, 495 F.3d 695 (D.C. Cir. 2007), we’ve criticized cases that, either actually or potentially, seek to impose liability – not for defective products – but for failure to supply as much of a non-defective drug as has been prescribed for the plaintiff. Today, we’re updating that discussion with a recent development, the affirmance of the decision that rejected the concept of “duty to supply” in 22 states. We blogged about that decision in the district court here. Plaintiffs thereafter appealed, but dropped their claims asserting a “free-standing duty to supply the market.” What’s left are described as “acceleration” (that progression of the disease allegedly worsened”) and “contaminant” (related to the production difficulties) claims.
This decision is Hochendoner v. Genzyme Corp., Nos. 15-1446, -1447, slip op. (1st Cir. May 23, 2016). The allegations in Hochendoner were that production difficulties led to a shortage of the only FDA-approved treatment for Fabry Disease, a progressive condition that is eventually fatal if untreated. Slip op. at 3-5. The shortage (which lasted several years) led to rationing, and in response to rationing a bunch of Fabre sufferers tried to sue. For more details, see our prior post. Except for one plaintiff, none of them alleged that there was anything wrong with the product they actually received – only that they didn’t receive enough of it, and as a result their pre-existing Fabre Disease symptoms recurred and/or progressed.
The First Circuit affirmed, albeit on different grounds – standing . Although not addressed in the District Court, standing is a “prerequisite” to subject matter jurisdiction, and cannot be waived. Slip op. at 8. An interesting procedural point that the court confirmed is that a “plaintiff bears the burden of establishing sufficient factual matter to plausibly demonstrate his standing to bring the action” under TwIqbal. Id. at 10. In Hochendoner all but one of the plaintiffs alleged no particularized injury (no doubt because the litigation was a putative class action, and anything particularized is likely to preclude class certification). Simply being required to take a reduced dose of a drug didn’t come close to actual, particularized injury:
Utterly absent, however, is any allegation linking the alleged acceleration and contaminant injuries to any specific plaintiff. This gap is most apparent with respect to the contaminant theory. There is simply no assertion at any point in the complaints that any specific plaintiff took or received a dose contaminated with particulate matter. Rather, the allegation is only that [defendant] produced a batch of [the drug] contaminated with particulate matter − not that contaminated doses were ever shipped or administered to any named Fabry patients.Continue Reading New Duty To Supply Decision
We have posted many times about cases where a manufacturer of a regulated product is sued over alleged violations of a state consumer protection or deceptive trade practices act because of something allegedly amiss in the product’s name, labeling, advertising, or sales practices. We know that drug and device manufacturers like the ones we represent can spend resources dealing with state attorneys general over the threat that such suits will be brought. We cannot recall seeing, let alone posting on, a case where the manufacturer sued the state attorney general because its threat of suit—relayed to major retailers, who stopped selling the product—allegedly hurt its business and constitutional rights. There would seem to be lots of reasons why an action like this might not be taken by a company that wants to keep doing business in the particular state for other products it manufacturers. But if you are a one product, dietary supplement company and your presumably large market in Texas disappeared after letters went out based on a determination by the Texas AG’s office, not by a court, then you might be the one to bring suit preemptively. That is what happened in NiGen Biotech, L.L.C., v. Paxton, No. 14-10923, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 17223 (5th Cir. Sept. 30, 2015).
The unusual posture of the case—in comparison to those we usually handle or read—means that it delves into constitutional issues that we knew better back when we clerked and the docket was sprinkled with cases against state actors. The ones brought by prisoners are remembered more for their unique fact patterns and brand of advocacy than for the constitutional principles they implicated. NiGen, likewise, holds our interest not because its treatment of sovereign immunity, federal question jurisdiction, and standing has direct implications for the sort of cases that normally fill our posts. Rather, it shows that a manufacturer can go on the offensive against a state AG who probably thought it could do just about whatever it wanted prior to bringing its own suit. It is not that we think the manufacturer NiGen is right on the underlying issue of whether the product’s label was deceptive, which touches on some complex constitutional issues, especially since Amarin has come down since this case started.Continue Reading Going on Offense against State Deceptive Trade Practices AG Actions
Can a plaintiff sue in federal court for consumer fraud when he never purchased and never used the product? This is not a trick question, and the obvious answer is also the correct answer. No, he can’t. But the point raises interesting strategic issues that we will get to in a minute. The case du jour is Dapeer v. Neutrogena Corp., No. 14-22113-Civ, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37644 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 25, 2015), where the plaintiff filed a class action alleging that the labeling for more than 20 different types of sunblock made deceptive sun protection claims. Id. at **2-3. Mind you, the plaintiff did not allege sunburn, or any other adverse effect of the allegedly underpowered and purportedly not-so-water-resistant lotions and sprays. His claims were of the economic type, as class actions these days tend to be, alleging that he would not have purchased the products had he known that the products did not actually block the sun or resist water as well as the labels claimed. Id. at *3.
The problem for the plaintiff was that he had purchased only two of the products, leading the court to conclude that he lacked Article III standing to represent classes asserting claims over the products he never bought. Apparently, there are district courts that would have allowed this plaintiff to do what he wanted to do, i.e., represent class members on claims involving over 20 products [see id. at *9 n.3], although we cannot see how that can possibly be. The rule in the Eleventh Circuit seems rock solid: “[A]t least one named plaintiff must establish Article III standing for each class subclaim. In other words, Article III standing of a named plaintiff must be established on a claim-by-claim basis within the Eleventh Circuit, and deferring the standing determination to the class certification stage will yield no different result.” Id. at *9 (citations omitted).
So to have standing in a claim alleging deceptive sales, the plaintiff must have bought the product, and the district court therefore dismissed the claims related to products the plaintiff did not purchase or use. Id. at *9 (“Here, Plaintiff lacks Article III standing to bring claims on behalf of the . . . products he did not purchase because he cannot conceivably allege any injuries from the products that he never purchased or used.”). The class action still went forward, but with claims over two products instead of more than 20.Continue Reading Plaintiff Gets Burned By Article III in Sunblock Class Action
Today we have this guest post from Reed Smith‘s Andrew Stillufsen about a recent defense win in a third party payer (or is it”payor”?) case here in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. We hope you find it as interesting as we did. As usual all credit and/or blame belong to the guest poster.
*************
Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Cephalon, Inc., is a third party payor case where plaintiffs – workers compensation insurers – claimed that they were injured by paying for prescriptions for defendant drug company’s pain medications which were written as a result of its alleged off-label marketing of the drug. 2014 U.S. Dist. Lexis 95075 (E.D. Pa. July 14, 2014). SPOILER ALERT: as with similar cases, even after extensive discovery and an amended complaint, plaintiffs still failed to allege facts sufficient to establish standing or to support any of their fraud claims. Motion to dismiss granted.
Before the court could address plaintiffs’ substantive claims, it first had to determine whether the allegations were sufficient to establish standing. To establish standing, the plaintiff must show that they suffered a cognizable injury. Id. at *16-18. “The contours of the injury-in-fact requirement, while not precisely defined, are very generous, requiring only that the claimant allege some specific, identifiable trifle of injury.” Id. at *17. (citations and internal quotations omitted). Under the now-familiar TwIqbal analysis, plaintiffs failed to allege sufficient facts to show even a mere “trifle.”
In this case, plaintiffs essentially alleged two theories of injury. First, they claimed they were injured because “they did not get what they paid for,” as plaintiffs paid for drugs that were not safe or effective due to defendant’s alleged fraudulent off-label marketing. Second, but for the alleged off-label marketing, plaintiffs claimed they were injured when they paid for more expensive drugs when less-expensive drugs were available. Id. at *18-19.Continue Reading Guest Post – Another Third Party Payor Case Is Shown The Door
“Necessity is the mother of invention.” “Desperate times call for desperate measures.” “Bad facts make bad law.” We see two of three of these adages play out in Carik v. U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, No. 12-272 (BAH), 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 168714 (D.D.C. Nov. 27, 2013). To the great credit of