Federal preemption can be a very powerful defense. For example, claims concerning Class III medical devices requiring pre-market approval are generally preempted by the Medical Device Amendments of 1976, 21 U.S.C. § 360c, et...more
A recent Second Circuit preemption decision illustrates the importance of a clear-eyed approach to medical device preemption issues. In Glover v. Bausch & Lomb, Inc., 6 F.4th 229 (2d Cir. 2021), the district court...more
On March 16, 2018, in a matter of first impression in Massachusetts, the Supreme Judicial Court (“SJC”) joined a minority of states in recognizing a tort theory of “Innovator Liability” – namely, that brand-name drug...more
Massachusetts state and federal courts issued a number of important product liability decisions in 2017. The Product Liability and Toxic Tort Litigation Group at Nutter recently reviewed these cases. Highlighted below are...more
In 2009, the United States Supreme Court in Wyeth v. Levine affirmed a judgment rejecting a prescription drug manufacturer’s contention that plaintiff’s claim that the manufacturer should have strengthened its U.S. Food and...more
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Holds Failure-to-Warn Claim Against Drug Manufacturer Not Preempted Because There Was No “Clear Evidence” FDA Would Not Have Approved Plaintiffs’ Suggested Warning; Also Holds...more
The Sixth Circuit recently held that a failure-to-warn claim could proceed against a generic manufacturer that had failed to timely follow the brand-name label. Fulgenzi v. Pliva Inc., Case No. 12-3504 (6th Cir. March 13,...more
Yesterday, the Sixth Circuit issued its decision in Fulgenzi v. PLIVA, Inc., a case involving a state law claim for failure to warn against a generic drug manufacturer. Case No. 12-3504 (6th Cir. March 13, 2013). The court...more