Law

1. Yates v. Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., ___ F.3d ___, 2015 WL 8538119 (6th Cir. Dec. 11, 2015).  This year’s number-one arrived relatively late, but it was definitely worth the wait.  When we first read Bartlett (2013 +1), we were struck by the Court going out of its way to state expressly that the FDA-pre-approval requirement for design changes applied to all prescription drugs.  That reference to “branded or generic” had to have a purpose.  Yates is the first court of appeals expressly applying the logic that all design changes requiring prior FDA review are preempted.  Post-approval, the FDA must review all “major” or “moderate” changes to drug design, rendering simultaneous compliance with an immediate state-law duty to use a different design impossible.  A “pre-approval” design defect claim (that the defendant should have submitted a different design to the FDA in the first instance, was speculative and would have required FDA approval of the different design in any case.  This “never-start selling” claim was also preempted because it was the same as the “stop-selling” claim rejected in Bartlett.  States cannot preclude the sale of what the FDA approved.  The bad Wimbush case (2008 -1) – from the same court of appeals (indeed, both originating in N.D. Ohio) – is limited to its facts (a drug already removed from the market), and doesn’t prevent preemption of design defect claims where the FDA continues to approve the product.  Application of a good No. 1 decision to confine a bad No. 1 decision is indicative of another good No. 1 decision.  Beyond that, Yates-based preemption would erase the non-generic stop-selling claim allowed in Pennsylvania in Lance (2014 -2).  Yates suggests that design defect claims against branded prescription drugs (and eventually §510k devices) are on their way out.  We wasted no time yacking about Yates here.
2. Caplinger v. Medtronic, Inc., 784 F.3d 1335 (10th Cir. 2015).  Over the last couple of years, there have been a lot of good trial court decisions on off-label promotion and preemption (most, but not all, involving Infuse).  None of those decisions was better than Caplinger (2013 +9).  Because it was so good (a complete dismissal), Caplinger could be appealed.  This year it was affirmed, and the affirmance was just as good.  Off-label use does not provide plaintiffs with a get-out-of-preemption-free card.  If Congress had wanted to exempt off-label use (which it knew about, see 21 U.S.C. §396), from preemption, it would have done so expressly.  Claims that would require changes to labels or design are “different from or in addition to” what the FDA approved and are preempted.  Challenges to the legality of purported off-label promotion are purely matters of federal law and thus aren’t equivalent to any recognized state-law claim.  Indeed, to the extent plaintiffs identified any federal regulations at all, their claims “substantially exceed[ed]” them.  Adulteration/misbranding are FDCA, not state-law, violations.  If Congress wishes to set a different balance, it can, but until it does, all the plaintiffs’ litany of claims about off-label use/promotion of a PMA medical device are preempted.  The fact that plaintiffs have sought Supreme Court review in Caplinger (#15-321) only underscores its significance as a preemption milestone.  We celebrated Caplinger here and here.  Full disclosure:  Reed Smith is involved in Caplinger, so consider this entry a non-RS post.
3. In re Celexa & Lexapro Marketing & Sales Practices Litigation, 779 F.3d 34 (1st Cir. 2015).  Where it exists, federal preemption is the strongest defense our clients have.  So it shouldn’t be much of a surprise that our top three decisions are all appellate courts recognizing that FDCA-related preemption extends to new areas.  Celexa was the first appellate decision recognizing that Mensing (2011 +1) impossibility preemption cannot be limited to generic drugs.  Celexa was brought by some rather self-important plaintiffs seeking, under state law, to enjoin the sale of an FDA-approved drug because the efficacy data on which approval was based was allegedly wrong.  That presented a problem – the efficacy data at issue had already been reviewed by the FDA, and plaintiffs offered nothing new.  Since the rationale Levine (2009 -1) employed against preemption was that innovator manufacturers were free to change their labels based on “new” information (the changes being effected (“CBE”) exception), a label-related claim that fell outside the scope of the CBE exception, here, that involved only “old” information, was preempted.  While this type of informational claim isn’t all that common, the principle that Celexa established – that Mensing’s implied preemption logic extended beyond generic drugs – is critical.  We pointed out the broader implications of Celexa here.
4. David v. Medtronic, Inc., 188 Cal. Rptr.3d 103 (Cal. App. 2015).  CAFA provides that actions including more than 100 plaintiffs are removable to federal court as “mass actions.”  Predictably, the other side started filing complaints with dozens (but never 100) of blatantly misjoined plaintiffs from all over the country with nothing in common except suing over the same drug/device.  There would always be a couple of plaintiffs from the forum state, and a couple of plaintiffs from the defendant’s home state to destroy diversity as another ground for removal.  This gamesmanship has been particularly widespread in California.  The David decision goes a long way to putting a stop to this in the nation’s largest and most litigious state by affirming severance of all the out-of-state plaintiffs on the basis of forum non conveniens, since the defendant wasn’t based in California either.  There were Bauman personal jurisdictional problems with the case, and the court recognized that the “same transaction” standard for joinder wasn’t met by anybody anywhere in the country claiming the same injuries from the same product.  The medical treatments were different, and so were the doctors, hospitals, and the informational and temporal context in which each individual case arose.  The non-California claims could be brought in those plaintiffs’ home states, so litigation tourists go away and stop clogging our courts.  Peripheral claims against nominal defendants don’t count against forum non conveniens, and if plaintiffs chose, they could continue with those peripheral claims in California.  We harmonized with David’s beautiful music here, and put the decision in perspective here.  Full disclosure:  David is a Reed Smith case, so this entry is also non-RS.
5. Sergeants Benevolent Ass’n Health & Welfare Fund v. Sanofi-Aventis United States LLP, 806 F.3d 71 (2d Cir. 2015).  We admit we were a bit depressed after the Third Circuit went south in the Avandia decision (2015 -3).  Then along came the Second Circuit to cheer us up again.  Like Avandia, SBA was a third-party payer RICO case; unlike Avandia court of appeals shut the SBA plaintiffs down.  The allegations had a Buckman-like tinge – that a questionable clinical study supported FDA approval, and then the defendants promoted off-label.  Because RICO is a federal statute, however, preemption isn’t a defense.  But causation is.  SBA rejected the doctors-don’t-matter refrain from Avandia.  To the contrary, prescribing physicians are central where prescription medical products are concerned.  “Generalized proof of causation was impossible because of the intervening actions of prescribing physicians.”  The varying effects of differing misrepresentations on independent decision makers make causation impossible to prove on anything but an individualized basis.  Against an FDA-approved drug, plaintiffs could not claim that “nobody” would have used it had the purported “true” risks been know.  That is “stop selling” by another name.  Nor could plaintiffs avoid the learned intermediaries’ role with “simplistic” statistical analysis.  Plaintiffs could not get to a class action by dumbing down the elements of their substantive claims.  Thus some inordinately long-running litigation (more than seven years) finally came to an end.  We bid SBA adieu here.
6. Amarin Pharma, Inc. v. FDA, ___ F. Supp.3d ___, 2015 WL 4720039 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 7, 2015).  Holy cow.  Bye-bye baby.  Outta here!  When we (well, Bexis) started advocating the First Amendment as a defense in the off-label promotion context twenty years ago, there wasn’t much traction.  Bone Screw cases turned out to be much easier to win on other grounds.  Fast forward two decades − past WLF, Pearson, Western States, Sorrell (2011 +5), and Caronia (2012 +7) − and things sure have changed.  At least in the Second Circuit, thanks to Caronia, truthful off-label promotion is First Amendment-protected speech, which the FDA (and, by extension, private plaintiffs) cannot prosecute.  Amarin was the first case in which the regulated manufacturer went head-to-head with the FDA, stuck it out, and won in court.  The plaintiff company’s science wasn’t what the FDA considered “substantial evidence,” but it was valid science.  What the plaintiff company wanted to tell potential prescribing physicians was truthful, properly disclaimed, and thus not “false or misleading” even though it concerned off-label use.  The FDA doesn’t want to appeal.  We went yard over Amarin here and here.
7. Armstrong v. Exceptional Child Center, Inc., ___ U.S. ___, 135 S. Ct. 1378 (2015).  It’s from the Supreme Court and it involves prescription drugs, but it’s not directly applicable to product liability.  It is relevant to, and reinforces, first, the Buckman preemption rationale against private enforcement of statutes like the FDCA where private enforcement is not allowed; and, second, why alleged violations of vague regulations cannot escape preemption.  Armstrong involved a Medicare statute, not the FDCA, but the reasoning is the same – indeed Buckman is a fortiori because the FDCA’s prohibition against private enforcement is express, whereas that in Armstrong was only “implied.”  The implication came from the statute’s provision of a single remedy for violations, one conferring no rights to individuals.  No private enforcement was allowed because “express provision of one method” of enforcement “suggests that Congress intended to preclude others.”  On the second point, the Medicaid statute’s requirements were vague, and thus “judicially unadministrable,” providing a second basis for Congress wanting the remedy that it provided to be exclusive.  The same reasoning should preempt the holdings of a number of courts allowing “parallel” claims purporting to enforce vague FDA manufacturing-related regulations.  We discussed the implications of Armstrong here.
8. State ex rel. J.C. v. Mazzone, 772 S.E.2d 336 (W. Va. 2015).  Just as in California (see Martin, above), forum-shopping litigation tourists took it on the chin in West Virginia.  Instead of Bauman, however, this case was decided solely on old fashioned forum non conveniens grounds.  It was the same game playing, though – dozens of out-of-state plaintiffs misjoined in the same complaint.  Because neither the plaintiffs nor the defendant was from West Virginia, and plaintiffs could all sue in their states of residence, West Virginia was an inconvenient forum.  The ordinarily “great deference” given to a plaintiff’s choice of forum is diminished where a nonresident sues over matters not arising in the state.  The defendant’s difficulty in obtaining discovery from fact witnesses in plaintiffs’ home states worked sufficient “injustice” to support the forum non conveniens finding.  All of the considerations discussed by the court would be the same in any litigation tourist case against an out-of-state corporation, thus Mazzone, if followed by the trial courts of West Virginia, effectively ends multi-plaintiff, out-of-state, CAFA avoiding complaints in this state.  We explained the significance of Mazzone here.
9. In re Zoloft (Sertraline Hydrocloride) Products Liability Litigation, 2015 WL 7776911 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 2, 2015).  The best Daubert decision of 2015 was either this one or a similar decision (both excluding the same expert) in the Lipitor MDL.  We chose this one because Zoloft involved a higher degree of Daubert difficulty, since there actually were some (older, smaller, and otherwise less persuasive) studies that reached adverse, statistically significant results.  The plaintiffs, and their result-oriented statistical expert, were ultimately done in by more recent, more powerful studies that refuted the supposed connection between cardiac birth defects and Zoloft that plaintiffs’ expert tried very hard to invent.  This was a do-over – plaintiffs had their first batch of experts all excluded under Daubert − so this guy was their last chance, and they knew it.  Everything was heavily litigated, and, the lengthy opinion thoroughly addressed Daubert issues like a priori reasoning, statistical significance and p-values, cherry-picking, after-the-fact statistical manipulations, confounding, and re-analysis of published data.  Daubert is the second strongest MDL defense strategy (after preemption) and as the year draws to a close, the result here means that all the cases in the Zoloft MDL are likely subject to summary judgment.  We analyzed Zoloft here, after complaining about the do-over here.
10. In re Incretin-Based Therapies Products Liability Litigation, ___ F. Supp.3d ___, 2015 WL 6912689 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 9, 2015).  The Levine (2009 -1) clear evidence test for implied preemption in prescription drug cases can be met – that’s the lesson of Incretin.  It’s tough, but it can be done, and successful preemption can shut down an entire MDL.  Plaintiffs claimed that the drug caused a disease (pancreatic cancer).  Trouble is, the FDA decided time and time again that any causal link was “indeterminate” and shouldn’t appear on the drug’s label.  Plaintiffs’ experts could manipulate the data (such as notoriously inaccurate – the court acknowledged this – adverse event reports) all they wanted, but the fact remained that the FDA had looked at everything and said “no.”  Hence, preemption existed under Levine’s “would have rejected” standard, which the court refused to make worse than the Supreme Court already had.  The court recognized that, when the FDA calls for data from all manufacturers of a class of drugs, it has more evidence at its fingertips than any one of the competing manufacturers, which was unlike Levine.  Nor is it necessary that the FDA definitively rule out causation; a conclusion that causation hasn’t been shown to the FDA’s regulatory standards is enough.  Finally, plaintiffs cannot avoid preemption by arguing fraud on the FDA.  That’s preempted, too, and plaintiffs can’t second-guess the FDA’s administrative process.  What the FDA considers, or not, is within the discretion of the Agency.  A final plus factor in Incretin was that both federal and state judges had heard argument of the motion, and the state judge agreed.  We announced that Christmas had come early in Incretin-land here and mentioned the state-court’s concurrence here.

Share:  New Moon Manifesting Call January 7, 2016 6:00 pm PST 7:00 pm MST 8:00 CST 9:00 pm EST Pre -registration ends at 5:30 pm PST day of event. Greetings Dear One... Capricorns powerful determined energy is ready to support you in structuring your goals for 2016!  Prepare for the new year with this powerful new moon!  (Watch your emails for a New Year Numerology Call. Details Coming soon. Save the date Jan. 12, 2016) Join DaKara Thursday January 7th as you'll take a magical journey into sacred space within the meadow. CLAIM 3 things for yourself for 2016! We will step into a magical underground amphitheater and be embodied through the Music of the Spheres.  Allowing the tones, sounds and frequencies to anchor your hearts desires!     Allow the energy of Earth to assist you in creating a strong foundation for 2016. Capricorn - the fish tailed goat can launch you into action with your goals and desires. Manifesting anything takes action!   Capricorns determined energy can support you to take action steps in 2016! Deep within your heart is a magic ready to be accessed the unfolded carrying you forward in your divine uniqueness!   First you will release what is no longer serving you by bringing down the light to clear, balance, transform and heal the part of you that is holding you back to manifesting what you are wanting.  What wishes or goals are you ready to bring into the physical?   Join us as we journey deep within, where you will set your intentions, goals and what you are ready to achieve in its highest form and raise your vibrational frequency and then anchor that into your physical body.   We will chant your wishes into the part of your being that creates miracles in your life!  http://newmooncheck.com/manifesting-call/ Sign up now and be entered to win a private session with DaKara! Details below! What are you desiring? What choices are you ready to step into energetically? What's holding you back?  Allow the energy of  Earth  ~ Capricorn to support and transform you in manifesting your true purpose this life time. Playing with the energy of Cardinal Earth! What Miracles await you? Sign up now to learn more about Astrology or for the Healing and Meditation or both! New Moon January 9, 2016 5:30 pm PST – 8:30 pm EST 20 degrees Capricorn  Register now with a chance to WIN a one on one 20 min session with DaKara! (Value $80) pre-register until January 7th, 3:00 pm PDT to be in the drawing. You now have the option to sign up for 6 months of New MoonCalls and receive one month free.  This is the best deal for those  who attend the calls regularly.  You will only have to sign up onto the list once and will be automatically entered into the drawing to win a one on one with DaKara. Cost Only $90.90 for January through June 2016 Or pay monthly Pre Register for only $18.18 and receive the replay too! ($30 Value) Post class price $21.21 Sign up in advance and save.  http://newmooncheck.com/manifesting-call/  During the meditation I will guide you into the sacred circle of healing light where the real magic happens!   Learn about the energy of this new moon.You will experience a powerful healing,and be guided into the manifesting matrix to support your dreams and wishes!   Powerful Healing and Meditation to help you transform what is no longer serving you.  The healing meditation is a separate recording so you can easily listen over and over to that portion to work on and transform several areas of your life.   Call duration approx  60 minutes (usually closer to 70 minutes as I tend to over deliver!) Pre -registration ends at 5:30 pm PST day of event. Share from attendee! "DaKara's new moon guidance is thoughtful and insightful. ​Her clear intuitive direction to capture what the stars and the universe are simply magical. I was laid off last year and since have been writing new moon checks. It's nothing short of a miracle that I've been able to cover my bills. I love that DaKara keeps it simple by directing one to ask for more, and not in the form of money. It was especially comforting for me in the recent call where she suggests writing a check for sustenance. Thank you for being a guide to supporting people to live a life that is large and glorious!!" Melissa Grillo, CA ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~ Each month we are given time to till the soil of what we want to manifest... The Dark of the Moon time or also known as 'Balsamic' Moon.  About 2.5 days before each new moon, we are in this extremely fertile time to go within and focus on what we are choosing to manifest in our lives. Using the energy of the astrology sign the new moon is in, as well as the house the new moon touches on for you, we will create the energy within the group to support you on your journey! By signing up in advance, your name will be entered into a drawing for a 20 min session with me on the phone or via Skype! How does it get any better than that? In this class you will learn/experience: Learn about the energy of the sign of the new moon. Learn the Sabian Symbol of the new moon. Learn about the energy of the houses. I will offer a live healing to clear and relinquish the energies that maybe holding you back around what you are wanting to manifest during the upcoming new moon. Meditation to assist you in creating! If you have your birth chart, have it handy for the call! If you need  a chart go to www.Astro.com to get a free chart... or sign up to get a mini new moon reading with me to personally assist you! Go to====>>>> http://NewMoonCheck.com/mini-readings/ Not able to attend the live call?  Sign up now to receive call in details and access to the replay!  I will send out the replay recording within 24 hours of the call!  Plenty of time to listen and be ready for the new moon!   http://newmooncheck.com/manifesting-call/ Pre -registration ends at 5:30 pm PST day of event. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Love & Blessings Team DaKara P.S. Share this with your friends and family! P.S.  Take advantage now of the special 6 month sign up.  It ends when pre-registration ends.  Receive one month free.  Next month I will offer the same price but for 5 months.  This will simplify the process for you as a regular to the calls  :) P.S.S.   Happy New Year! Soon I will be putting the final touches on the January 12th Numerology call details.   Learn about the coming year 9 and how to calculate your personal year number and how those two numbers may play together.   Share:

P.O. Box 4338
Everett, WA 98204, USA
 

Blessings

DaKara
Journeys Into Wholeness

.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:.
DaKara Kies, Author, Master Energy Healer, 
Light Alchemist, Sacred Transformationist,
Certified Inspiration, Money & Relationship Coach.
Intuitive Reader, Feng Shui Consultant & Artist

www.DaKara.com
www.HPTHealing.com
www.FengShuiMind.info
www.RelinquishSeries.com
www.NewMoonCheck.com
www.DaKaraEssences.com