Drug Design Defect Cases Still Not Settled

Share

A Mississippi federal court decision in a prescription drug preemption case has muddied the waters for the legal status of design defect as a claim under state law, according to a blog post by attorney Eric Alexander (Reed Smith). He writes that the judge dismissed without prejudice the design defect and eight of the nine other claims offered by the plaintiff. The plaintiff claimed to have suffered ketoacidosis and renal failure from taking a prescription diabetes medication at about the time that FDA issued a public health advisory about the risk of ketoacidosis in SGLT-2 inhibitors. The post says that several months later the drug’s labeling was revised to include warnings about ketoacidosis and urosepsis.

Alexander writes that confusion arises from the court’s decision to address preemption before determining whether state law imposes the duties that might create the conflict leading to preemption. He quotes the judge as writing, “If there is no state law duty, the state law cause of action must certainly fail but there can be no conflict so as to justify preemption. Put differently, the absence of a state law duty is fatal to a claim, but not under the doctrine of conflict preemption.”

The plaintiff disputed that there can be a conflict between state and federal law when it comes to a drug’s design. However, the court held that a post-approval change in design would be preempted, regardless of what it entailed.

Alexander says there was no reason for the court’s abstract analysis because the plaintiff’s asserted design defect claim was not sufficient under Mississippi law. The court allowed only the plaintiff’s express warranty claim, but also gave her a chance to re-plead all of her claims, including design defect.

Read more