SCOTUS Should Hear Janssen Preemption Case: Column

Share

The Supreme Court should hear the appeal of a Janssen case in which the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas held the company liable for not adding warnings about specific risks of off-label uses associated with one of its drugs. That’s the view of American Tort Reform Association president Tiger Joyce. Writing in a Bloomberg Law online column, Joyce says the high court should take the opportunity to make it clear that state courts cannot hold any party liable for simply following guidelines set forth by federal agencies.

Joyce says the Philadelphia court decision, which the Pennsylvania Supreme Court declined to review, ignored the fact that FDA prevents companies from unilaterally making changes to labeling. “FDA has the power and statutory obligation to ensure that prescription medicine labels appropriately communicate risks from off-label uses,” Joyce writes. “FDA experts know how to best convey the information without diluting the labeling by including speculative or scientifically unfounded warnings.”

Joyce argues that as a practical matter, a state court holding the manufacturer of an FDA-approved product liable for not changing a mandated warning has the effect of overruling federal law. “If allowed to stand, it would, we believe, violate the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution,” he says.

Allowing such legal inconsistency and unpredictability would impair innovation and investment in the development of new treatments, according to Joyce, because businesses would be exposed to 50 different state regulatory and liability structures.

Read more