Plaintiffs Need to Prove ‘Newly Acquired Evidence’: Attorney
Attorney Steven Boranian (Reed Smith) says plaintiffs alleging that innovator companies failed to issue a warning after receiving “newly acquired evidence” of a risk must be able to tell what the company knew and when it knew it. Writing in a Drug and Device Law blog post, Boranian reviews a number of court cases that recognize that implied preemption depends on whether the plaintiff can present newly acquired evidence of a relevant risk.
He quotes an Alabama federal court decision that “if a plaintiff can allege the existence of newly-acquired information that supports a labeling change under the changes being effected regulation, and if the manufacturer subsequently fails to show by ‘clear evidence’ that FDA would not have approved a change to the label, then a failure-to-warn claim will survive the manufacturer’s preemption defense.”
The Alabama case involved a complaint that Boehringer Ingelheim failed to warn adequately about the risk of diabetic ketoacidosis in one of its drugs. But, the post says, the complaint was ambiguous on what the manufacturer knew about that condition and when the manufacturer knew it. Boranian says the court particularly objected to what it terms allegations that were “nothing but a useless set of legal conclusions.” The court allowed the plaintiff to submit an amended complaint, but said it must “eliminate the unnecessary and unhelpful shotgun assertions and claims.”