BERKOVITZ VS. U.S.: "THERE IS NO REASON TO BELIEVE"
BERKOVITZ VS. U.S.: "THERE IS NO REASON TO BELIEVE" that the Supreme Court decision will impact on drug approval decisions, FDA Associate Chief Counsel Ann Wion, PhD, said at the Food & Drug Law Institute's 32nd Annual Education Conference held Nov. 29-30. "In federal court tort claims act actions brought against the government in connection with FDA drug product approvals, the courts have uniformly dismissed the suits as barred by the discretionary function exception. There is no reason to believe that the Berkovitz decision would necessarily change that usual outcome for drug safety cases brought against the government," Wion stated. One reasonable implication from the Berkovitz opinion, Wion said, "may be that agency officials wishing to minimize the government's exposure to tort liability should not establish detailed regulatory criteria and regulations." She noted that the detail in FDA's polio vaccine regulations partly reflects implementations of the Public Health Service Act licensing provisions, which involved arranging specific product standards and regulations. Wion pointed out that FDA does not have product specific regulations for products approved under NDAs; instead the agency has promulgated regulations describing general information for applications and general criteria for acceptable studies. The Supreme Court Berkovitz case involved allegations that FDA knowingly released one lot of Lederle's Orimmune oral polio vaccine in 1979 without conducting the mandated virulence testing. The June 13 court ruling found that the discretionary function exception to tort liability would not protect FDA from personal injury claims "when a suit charges an agency with failing to act in accord with a specific mandatory directive" ("The Pink Sheet" June 20, T&G-4). The discretionary function exception, Wion explained, will not block suits based on two types of claims: "First, a claim that the product was approved without a determination of compliance. Second, a claim that the product was approved even though the agency determined that it did not comply with regulatory standards." Wion noted that "regulations that have the force and effect of law are also often more readily enforceable by agencies than standards developed less formally." Another implication that can be drawn from the Berkovitz decision, she offered, "is that to protect against governmental tort liability at a minimum, regulations setting approval requirements should contain waiver provisions to be invoked by the agencies at their discretion." The FDA attorney pointed out that currently there are six polio vaccine cases, including the Berkovitz case, pending against the government in federal district courts. She added that the combined total of damages requested in the six suits exceeds $40 mil. "These cases have been consolidated for the discovery or pretrial phase of the litigation during which the facts about the licensing and lot release of Lederle's Orimmune will be gathered," Wion said. She noted that the discretionary function exception issues "will undoubtedly be revisited for these pending cases."
You may also be interested in...
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 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
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