Supreme Court Decision Could Benefit Reglan Cases
November 1, 2011
A decision yesterday by the Supreme Court not to hear an appeal from a major manufacturer of orthopedic devices was seen as a win for those still battling in court over injuries received by Reglan users as well. The courts decision in Bausch vs. Stryker was reversed by the Seventh Circuit Court to find that product manufacturers must meet both state and federal manufacturing guidelines and was laid to rest yesterday by the Supreme courts ruling to not hear an appeal by the plaintiff.
The decision is seen as a win for Reglan cases as well because the ruling essentially sets precedent against an earlier ruling in the case of Pilva vs. Mensing. In that case the court found that, Pilva, the manufacturer of the generic version of Reglan, did not have to comply with proper drug labeling like the makers of the name brand drug had to.
The mislabeling of the drug led to thousands of individuals developing Tardive Dyskinesia, a Parkinson’s-like degenerative disorder. The new ruling means that these generic manufacturers may now have to abide by the same guidelines as their name-brand counterparts.
The Reglan Injury Lawyers with Hughes & Coleman want to hear from you. Who would want to give drug manufacturers immunity from having to meet both state and federal labeling guidelines and why? Tell us about a similar case you have regarding Reglan by filling out a free online consultation form.