PLIVA v. Mensing and Its Implications

Product Safety & Liability Report (BNA), Vol. 39, pp. 972-982, September 5, 2011

Georgetown Public Law Research Paper No. 12-137

13 Pages Posted: 22 Sep 2012  

Brian Wolfman

Georgetown University Law Center

Dena Feldman

Covington & Burling

Date Written: September 5, 2011

Abstract

The U.S. Supreme Court ruling in PLIVA Inc. v. Mensing will immunize generic drug manufacturers facing failure-to-warn claims from state-law liability, and may also have implications for preemption jurisprudence more generally, says attorney Brian Wolfman and co-author Dena Feldman in this BNA Insight. The authors analyze the ruling, and offer their views on the questions that PLIVA raises about the ongoing vitality of the presumption against preemption, the standard for determining ‘‘impossibility’’ preemption, and the propriety of deference to an agency’s views on preemption.

Keywords: Supreme Court, PLIVA, FDA regulations, generic drugs, preemption jurisprudence, failure-to-warn claims

JEL Classification: K00, K30, K39

Suggested Citation

Wolfman, Brian and Feldman, Dena, PLIVA v. Mensing and Its Implications (September 5, 2011). Product Safety & Liability Report (BNA), Vol. 39, pp. 972-982, September 5, 2011; Georgetown Public Law Research Paper No. 12-137. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2150309

Brian Wolfman (Contact Author)

Georgetown University Law Center ( email )

600 New Jersey Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20001
United States

Dena Feldman

Covington & Burling ( email )

1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20004-2401
United States

Paper statistics

Downloads
53
Rank
307,132
Abstract Views
520