Another Motrin Failure-To-Warn Decision Rejects Pre-emption Defense
This article was originally published in The Tan Sheet
Executive Summary
Massachusetts’ supreme court says no “clear evidence” showed “FDA would not have approved a warning on OTC ibuprofen labels stating that redness, rash, and blisters may lead to a life-threatening disease.” McNeil’s failed appeal of a verdict in Children’s Motrin litigation adds to rulings that reject federal pre-emption against failure-to-warn complaints.
You may also be interested in...
J&J Petitions Supreme Court On Pre-emption, ‘Clear Evidence’ In OTC Litigation
Johnson & Johnson files a writ of certiorari asking the Supreme Court to review a $140m judgment against the firm in Massachusetts. Questions over “clear evidence” needed for FDA decision to pre-empt state courts are at heart of issue and need the court’s consideration.
J&J Petitions Supreme Court On Pre-emption, ‘Clear Evidence’ In OTC Litigation
Johnson & Johnson files a writ of certiorari asking the Supreme Court to review a $140m judgment against the firm in Massachusetts. Questions over “clear evidence” needed for FDA decision to pre-empt state courts are at heart of issue and need the court’s consideration.
Neutrogena Pre-emption Defense Stands On California State Court Appeal
The FDA Modernization Act promotes regulatory uniformity and pre-empts litigation seeking changes to J&J/Neutrogena sunscreen labeling claims beyond FDA requirements, a California state appellate court says. OTC drug and cosmetic firms have been less successful with pre-emption arguments in other cases.