Law Commons^™

Wyeth V. Levine And Its Implications, Brian Wolfman

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Wyeth v. Levine sharply limited the availability of implied preemption as a defense in pharmaceutical cases. In this Analysis & Perspective, attorney Brian Wolfman discusses the decision and its implications for prescription drug litigation as well as litigation in other areas that are regulated by the federal government.

After Wyeth, Wolfman says, a defendant in a prescription drug case must demonstrate a ‘‘tight fit between the labeling change proposed by the manufacturer (and rejected by the FDA) and the labeling change that the plaintiff contends would have prevented her injuries.’’ Moreover, he says, …

Generic Preemption: Applying Conflict Preemption After Wyeth V. Levine, Hannah B. Murray

Michigan Telecommunications & Technology Law Review

If a generic manufacturer does not have control over its safety warnings, can it comply with the obligations posed by state tort liability? State failure-to-warn actions evaluate whether a product manufacturer has met its obligation to warn consumers about known dangers associated with its product. In essence, if a manufacturer knows about a potentially dangerous outcome, it has a duty to warn its consumers. If the generic manufacturer can comply with a state duty to warn only by changing a label that the FDA will not allow it to change, it becomes impossible for the corporation to meet both requirements. …

When And How To Defer To The Fda: Learning From Michigan's Regulatory Compliance Defense, Jason C. Miller

Michigan Telecommunications & Technology Law Review

Michigan's regulatory compliance defense properly recognizes that an FDA-approved drug carrying an FDA-approved label should not be considered defective. However, the statute's absolute immunity provides no compensation for injured parties in any circumstance, including situations where the FDA process has failed. Nevertheless, it is possible to treat the FDA's approval as significant without eliminating the possibility of all state actions against drug makers by providing a litigation back-up through state attorneys general ("AGs"). This Note examines the question of FDA approval in state tort actions in Part I, discusses Michigan's answer to that question in Part II, and offers a …