Bower v. Johnson & Johnson, 795 F. Supp. 2d 672

This case is part of the Ortho Evra MDL centralized in ND Ohio under 28 U.S.C. § 1407.
Bower, a Michigan resident, used Ortho Evra from Feb–Mar 2005 and suffered a bilateral pulmonary embolism in Michigan.
Plaintiff filed suit in Sep 2009 in the District of Minnesota alleging multiple state-law claims.
The court has subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
Defendants moved for summary judgment; the court grants in part and denies in part.
Court addresses Michigan preemption of product liability and Minnesota consumer-protection claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Michigan preemption bars product liability claims	Bower argues Michigan § 600.2946(5) does not preempt her claims.	Defendants argue preemption applies absent fraud/bribery exceptions, so Michigan claims are barred.	Counts I–V precluded under Michigan preemption.
Whether Garcia, Wyeth, and Desiano control preemption analysis	Plaintiff urges Wyeth overrides Garcia and Desiano allows failure-to-warn.	Court adheres to Garcia and Wyeth; Desiano carries no precedential weight.	Garcia and Wyeth control; Desiano not binding.
Scope of preemption within Michigan statute and its exceptions	Exceptions (a)-(b) preemption analysis; Plaintiff seeks to avoid preemption.	Statute preempts unless exceptions apply; evidence of fraud/bribery required.	Exceptions do not save plaintiff’s Michigan product-liability claims; Counts I–V barred.
Viability of Minnesota claims (Counts VI–VIII)	Minnesota statutes claim viability independent of Michigan preemption.	Non-Minnesota claims governed by Michigan law; Minnesota claims may proceed.	Summary judgment denied without prejudice as to Counts VI–VIII.

Buckman Co. v. Pls' Legal Comm., 531 U.S. 341 (U.S. 2001) (fraud-on-FDA claims preempted by federal scheme)
Wyeth v. Levine, 555 U.S. 555 (U.S. 2009) (preemption not absolute; labeling changes and federal/state conflict centrale)
Garcia v. Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories, 385 F.3d 961 (6th Cir. 2004) (preemption upheld for Michigan § 600.2946(5) unless exceptions apply)
Desiano v. Warner-Lambert Co., 467 F.3d 85 (2d Cir. 2007) (disagreed with Garcia on preemption scope; not controlling here)
In re Aredia and Zometa Products Liability Litigation, 352 Fed.Appx. 994 (6th Cir. 2009) ( Sixth Circuit reaffirmed Garcia-based stance; binding for preemption analysis)
Taylor v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 468 Mich. 1 (Mich. 2003) (upheld Michigan’s preemption approach under § 600.2946(5))
White v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 538 F. Supp. 2d 1023 (W.D. Mich. 2008) (district court applying Michigan preemption doctrine)