A Bitter Pill for Brand Names?
University of Missouri at Kansas City - School of Law
July 1, 2011
In its 2008 ruling in Conte v. Wyeth Inc., the California Court of Appeal broke new ground by finding that the manufacturer of a brand-name prescription drug could be held liable for negligence that caused harm to people taking other manufacturers’ generic versions of the drug. So far, most other courts have rejected this theory of liability. But the U.S. Supreme Court’s decisions in Wyeth v. Levine and PLIVA Inc. v. Mensing may make it more likely that courts will begin to embrace the Conte theory. The Wyeth and PLIVA decisions mean that federal law preempts claims against generic drug makers for failing to give adequate warnings, but permits such claims to be brought against brand-name drug manufacturers. Courts may turn to the Conte liability theory as a way to permit some recovery for injuries that were caused by the negligence of the brand-name manufacturer as well as the generic producer.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 3
Keywords: prescription drugs, medicine, generic, brand name, products liability, federal preemption, torts, FDA
JEL Classification: K13, L65working papers series
Date posted: February 21, 2012
© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This page was processed by apollo2 in 0.406 seconds