Product Safety & Liability Report (BNA), Vol. 39, pp. 972-982, September 5, 2011
13 Pages Posted: 22 Sep 2012
Date Written: September 5, 2011
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: 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