October 5, 2011

When the Supreme Court made its ruling in favor of generic drug manufacturers in Pliva v. Mensing this past summer, it was doubtless a victory for generic drug makers, as the ruling meant that these companies could not be sued under state law over allegations that they failed to provide adequate label warnings about potential side effects.

These types of lawsuits had been especially prevalent in connection with metoclopramide—the generic form of Reglan, which is known to cause the permanent movement disorder tardive dyskinesia with prolonged use.

But that doesn’t mean that all claims these days against generic manufacturers are falling flat; instead a recent decision—Fisher v. Pelstring—addressed a factual uncertainty that wasn’t addressed in the Supreme Court’s ruling. That is: Whether or not the generic defendant incorporated certain FDA-approved warnings onto its brand label in a timely manner.

The plaintiff in the Fisher case was prescribed metoclopramide at a time when the generic label may not have been in line with the name brand label. For this reason, the court found this “possible deviation” significant to the motion to dismiss.

Read more.

Do you think this “loophole” may be relevant in additional cases against generic drug manufacturers?

To find out more about Reglan, visit www.reglandruginjury.com. Our Reglan drug injury lawyers may be able to help.