Pink Sheet is part of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them. Informa PLC’s registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use. For high-quality copies or electronic reprints for distribution to colleagues or customers, please call +44 (0) 20 3377 3183

Printed By

UsernamePublicRestriction
UsernamePublicRestriction

DRUG INDUSTRY EFFORTS TOWARD PRODUCT LIABILITY REFORM SHOULD TARGET BOTH FEDERAL AND STATE LEGISLATION, D.C. LAWYER JOHN McLAUGHLIN TELLS FDLI SEMINAR

Executive Summary

The pharmaceutical industry's efforts to obtain legislative reform of product liability law should be carried on at the state as well as the federal level, D.C. lawyer John McLaughlin (Royer Shacknai & Mehle) maintained at a Sept. 16 seminar sponsored by the Food and Drug Law Institute. "A short list of critical provisions must be supported at both the state and federal level," McLaughlin asserted. The provisions should include FDA approval as a defense against punitive damages, elimination of joint and several liability, a cap on noneconomic damages, a clearer and more restrictive legal standard for awarding punitive damages, inadmissibility of subsequent remedial measures as evidence of fault, and elimination of the collateral source rule (under which payments from insurance, government benefits, and workers compensation may not be factored into assessments of damages). Both federal and state approaches to such tort reforms must be under-taken because certain provisions "are more likely to be passed at the federal level, and others are more likely to be passed by the states," he said. "For example, FDA approval as a defense against punitive damages is more likely to be passed at the federal level. State legislatures are simply not as knowledgeable about, and therefore as comfortable with, federal regulatory agencies like the FDA as are congressmen and senators," said McLaughlin, a former counsel to Rep. Waxman (D-Calif.). On the other hand, "caps on noneconomic damages are more likely to be passed at the state level," he continued. Limits on awards for pain and suffering "have been strenuously opposed by congressional supporters of product liability legislation -- including Republican Sens. Stevens (Alaska) and Gorton (Washington) -- even after prodding by the Administration," McLaughlin noted. The pharmaceutical industry should therefore embark upon "vigorous pursuit of this provision at the state level of build on previous successes." Elimination or modification of the doctrine of joint and several liability is "a provision which should be pursued at both levels simultaneously," McLaughlin said. "It probably cannot be passed for all damages at the federal level, [where] the best that can be expected is elimination of joint liability for noneconomic damages. Elimination of joint liability for all damages probably can be passed in many states and probably even a few but not all of the key ones," he maintained. Consequently, "it is important to eliminate joint liability for all damages in as many states as possible and to rely on the federal statute to eliminate it for noneconomic damages in the remaining states," he asserted. A federal product liability bill is currently pending in the Senate, where debate on the legislation began on Sept. 17. The measure (S 2760) is expected to be filibustered and then withdrawn from consideration. Even if the Senate were to pass the bill, little hope remains this year in the House, which has not begun legislative action. "Considerably more legislative progress" has occurred at the state level, McLaughlin pointed out; however, the problem "persists because too few key states" have passed tort reform measures. Furthermore, "those states which have passed bills have not addressed the problem in a comprehensive fashion," he said. "A sweeping rewrite" of tort law cannot be passed at the state level because "there is simply no interest," nor at the federal level because is interest but not enough support." Center for Public Resources (CPR) founder James Henry urged that pharmaceutical manufacturers be sure that outside counsel has expertise in alternative dispute resolution, which he defines as "a range of practices aimed at preventing, managing, and resolving disputes cost effectively." Alternative dispute resolution is a voluntary, confidential, and nonbinding procedure. It commonly involves choosing a mediator, submitting written arguments, a single public (joint) session for each party to summarizing its best case, individual meetings between the mediator and each party, the mediator's written recommendation of settlement terms for each party (which is confidential and includes assessments of the strengths and weaknesses of the party's arguments), and final negotiations. Confidentiality is crucial to the process because neither party wants to tip his hand to the other in the event that the case is brought to trial. Corporate members of the Center of Public Resources include representatives of Abbott, Bristol-Myers, Lilly, McKesson, Merck, Monsanto, and Pfizer.

You may also be interested in...



Part D Discount Liability Coming Into Focus: CMS Releases Drug Cost Data

Newly released Medicare Part D data sheds light on the sales hit that branded pharmaceutical manufacturers will face when the coverage gap discount program gets under way in 2011

FDA Skin Infections Guidance Spurs Debate On Endpoint Relevance

FDA appears headed for a showdown with clinicians and the pharmaceutical industry over the proposed new clinical trial endpoints for acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections, the guidance's approach for justifying a non-inferiority margin and proposed changes in the types of patients that should be enrolled in trials

Shire Hopes To Sow Future Deals With $50M Venture Fund

Specialty drug maker Shire has quietly begun scouting deals with a brand-new $50 million venture fund, the latest of several in-house investment arms to launch with their parent company's pipelines, not profits, as the measure of their worth

UsernamePublicRestriction

Register

ID1125791

Ask The Analyst

Ask the Analyst is free for subscribers.  Submit your question and one of our analysts will be in touch.

Your question has been successfully sent to the email address below and we will get back as soon as possible. my@email.address.

All fields are required.

Please make sure all fields are completed.

Please make sure you have filled out all fields

Please make sure you have filled out all fields

Please enter a valid e-mail address

Please enter a valid Phone Number

Ask your question to our analysts

Cancel