Fulgenzi Decision

A federal appeals court decision to  generic drugmakers liable for
injuries allegedly caused by copycat products means more rights for consumers.

The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati revived a lawsuit
by Eleanor Fulgenzi, a woman who claimed generic drug company PLIVA Inc
failed to warn her of the risks of developing a neurological movement
disorder after using its gastric reflux drug for an extended period of
time.

The ruling is significant because plaintiffs like Fulgenzi making
“failure-to-warn” claims against generic makers have made little headway
in the wake of the 2011 U.S. Supreme Court ruling PLIVA v. Mensing. In
that case, the high court found that consumers could not bring
failure-to-warn claims against generics under state law because federal
law requires that the labels on generic drugs must match the labels on
their brand-name counterparts.

However, during the course of the Mensing litigation, it emerged that
PLIVA had failed to update the label on its gastric reflux drug,
metoclopromide, to bring it in line with the brand version, Reglan, made
by Schwarz Pharma.

 

My law firm argued the case. link here www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/…/USCOURTS-ohnd-5_09-cv-01767-3.pdf

Seal of the United States Court of Appeals for...

Seal of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Enhanced by Zemanta

Add Comment