Preemption News

On March 19, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in the fourth in a series of recent "pre-emption" cases involving prescription drugs and medical devices.

A raft of lawsuits filed Thursday against St. Jude Medical Inc. over an implanted heart device could challenge the broad liability protection that medical-device makers have enjoyed since a key Supreme Court ruling in 2008.

A federal appeals court on Monday ruled that patients who underwent laser eye surgery cannot sue doctors or the manufacturer for failing to inform them that the laser device was not approved to treat farsightedness, the latest setback for plaintiffs challenging off-label uses of medical products.

Nearly two years ago, the Supreme Court ruled that manufacturers of generic drugs were immune from liability in "failure to warn" lawsuits in state courts, in part because under federal law, generics are powerless to have warnings or labels that are different from their brand-name counterparts. 

The Supreme Court on Tuesday heard a generic-drug maker's argument that it should escape liability for selling a defective medication that left a New Hampshire woman disfigured, legally blind and unable to swallow food.

Business groups are urging Alabama's highest court to reconsider its recent ruling that name-brand drug makers can be held liable for injuries caused by the generic versions of their products.

Brand-name drug companies have launched a last-ditch effort to undo a state court's ruling that they are liable for injuries caused by generic drugs they didn't manufacture.

Last month, when I wrote about the Obama administration's apparent flip-flop on the question of federal pre-emption of product liability claims against generic drugmakers, I mentioned a curious footnote in the Justice Department's Supreme Court amicus brief in Mutual Pharmaceutical v. Barrett.