TITLE

Pharma bears responsibility for labelling

AUTHOR(S)
Kondro, Wayne
PUB. DATE
April 2009
SOURCE
CMAJ: Canadian Medical Association Journal;4/14/2009, Vol. 180 Issue 8, p808
SOURCE TYPE
Academic Journal
DOC. TYPE
Article
ABSTRACT
The article reports that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that compliance with Food and Drug Administration (FDA) label warnings does not imbue pharmaceutical companies with immunity from lawsuits regarding injuries caused by drug reactions. The ruling stressed that drug manufacturers must be responsible for drug labelling. The ruling upheld a lawsuit brought by Diana Levine, whose arm was amputated after she was erroneously injected with a drug.
ACCESSION #
37371883

 

Related Articles

  • Summary Judgment Granted in Pamidronate MDL. Hollingsworth, Joe // Mass Torts;Winter2012, Vol. 10 Issue 2, p36 

    The article presents the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York summary judgment ruling in favor of the pharmaceutical firms in the Pamidronate multidistrict litigation (MDL). The court ruled based on the Supreme Court's ruling in Pliva v. Mensin that U.S. Food and Drug...

  • Federal Preemption and Wyeth v. Levine: A Follow-Up. Peck, Robert // TortSource;Spring2009, Vol. 11 Issue 3, p5 

    The article discusses the tort case Wyeth v. Levine decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in March 2009. In the case, the court reaffirmed traditional principles governing the relationship of federal regulatory authority and state tort actions. The court rejected the argument presented by Wyeth that...

  • Preemption, tort reform, and pharmaceutical claims Part one: Who will become the pharmaceutical industry's insurers (or is it prescribing physicians and we do not know it?). Thornton, Russell G. // Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings;Oct2007, Vol. 20 Issue 4, p418 

    The article analyzes the Houston, Texas judge's ruling on the Ledbetter v. Merck & Co. case. The ruling states that Texans could not pursue a "failure-to-warn" claim against drug manufacturers unless the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) explicitly determined that a pharmaceutical manufacturer...

  • Chapter 6: Lawsuits.  // Antidepressants & Side Effects: Managing Risks;2007, p90 

    Chapter 6 of the journal "Antidepressants and Side-Effects: Managing Risks" is presented. This chapter is dedicated to the actions and defenses between consumers and pharmaceutical companies in the U.S. Hundreds of thousands of Americans claim that they have been injured by dangerous drugs and...

  • SUPREME COURT TORT RULING DEALS SETBACK TO INDUSTRY. Sissell, Kara // Chemical Week;3/9/2009, Vol. 171 Issue 7, p8 

    The article reports on the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court on the case Wyeth v. Levine. The court ruled that Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval does not shield drug companies from personal injury suits, a decision that will have major implications for personal injury lawsuits in a...

  • Top FDA Career Officials Opposed Preemption Rules. Young, Donna // BioWorld Today;11/4/2008, Vol. 19 Issue 215, p1 

    The article reports on the case heard by the U.S. Supreme Court that could decide whether Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of a drug preempts the right of a consumer to sue a manufacturer in state court if a medication later causes injury. The case Wyeth v. Diana Levine involves a...

  • End the apotheosis of the FDA. Sloane, Todd // Modern Healthcare;3/10/2008, Vol. 38 Issue 10, p46 

    The author comments on the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that injured patients cannot sue over malfunctions or design flaws in medical devices that survive the pre-approval process employed by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). He criticizes the government's position regarding the agency's...

  • Bring Generic Rules Into the 21st Century. Glenn, Christopher // Review of Ophthalmology;Apr2014, Vol. 21 Issue 4, p15 

    The article discusses the author's view on the 2011 decision of the U.S. Supreme Court that the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) restriction on label changes by generic manufacturers meant that those companies could not held liable for failure to warn patients about risks. He relates Doctor...

  • PRODUCTS LIABILITY--CONFLICT PREEMPTION: THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT DENIES PREEMPTION DEFENSE FOR DRUG MANUFACTURERS USING FDA-APPROVED WARNING LABELS.  // North Dakota Law Review;2010, Vol. 86 Issue 2, p405 

    The United States Supreme Court held a plaintiff's defective warning claims were not preempted by federal law or the Federal Drug Administration (FDA) regulations. Part I of this article provides the factual background in which the plaintiff's arm was amputated after she was given an injection...

Share

Read the Article

Courtesy of VIRGINIA BEACH PUBLIC LIBRARY AND SYSTEM

Sorry, but this item is not currently available from your library.

Try another library?
Sign out of this library

Other Topics