Children's Motrin Label Ruling Shows 'Genuine Confusion' On Pre-emption – J&J
This article was originally published in The Tan Sheet
Executive Summary
J&J's attorneys argue that a state court ruling of inadequate warnings on Children's Motrin labels conflicts with a federal appellate court's ruling about the product that also swung on whether a manufacturer can be held liable for failing to include a label warning without “clear evidence” FDA would have approved the label.
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.
High Court’s Wyeth v. Levine Ruling Returns Pre-Emption Status Quo
The Supreme Court's ruling in Wyeth v. Levine dashes pharmaceutical industry hopes for broad protection from state product liability lawsuits, but is not expected to trigger a sea-change in current industry operations
Abbott's ‘Bedrock Of Good Health’ Nutritionals Business Faces Mounting Infant Formula Litigation
Nutritional product business had 5.1% Q1 sales growth and is like Abbott’s other segments, “super well-aligned to the global demographics and trends in health care,” says CEO Ford. But as it defends complaints of damages from powder formulas made at facility found with unsafe levels of bacterial contaminants, Abbott’s also targeted in litigation alleging failure to warn about risk of infants born prematurely developing necrotizing enterocolitis if fed cow’s milk-based formula.