Texas Federal Court Rejects Effort to Ditch Presumption

Share

A Texas federal judge has rejected an effort to use Buckman preemption to eliminate an entire Texas tort reform statute that created a presumption in drug cases that a drug’s warning is adequate if FDA approved it. Attorney John Sullivan (Cozen O’Conner) writes in an online blog post that the state law gives plaintiffs five ways to rebut the presumption of an adequate warning, including showing that the defendant company withheld information from or misrepresented information to FDA. But it held that the means of rebuttal was held to be preempted by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals under Buckman because it requires a plaintiff to prove fraud on FDA.

In a case involving GlaxoSmithKline that was decided in 2015, Sullivan writes, the plaintiff argued that if the Buckman preemption applies at all, it must invalidate all of the applicable state law provisions and not just its fraud-on-FDA rebuttal. “In short, even though the statute created a presumption of adequacy and five ways to rebut it,” Sullivan writes, “the plaintiff asked the court to scrap the entire presumption regime because one means of rebuttal was preempted.”

He points out that the rules of statutory construction require courts to give effect to as much of a statute as possible while maintaining its original purpose, severing as little as necessary. Preempting only the fraud-on-FDA rebuttal provision accomplishes that, he says. Plaintiffs still have the potential option of four other means of rebuttal and, in fact, might even be able to use the fraud-on-FDA rebuttal if FDA itself made such a finding.

Sullivan says the court not only applied the basic rules of statutory construction but also applied a Texas code that favors severing only an invalid portion of a statute to invalidating the entire scheme.

Read more