Chatman v. Pfizer, Inc.
2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44525
S.D. Miss.2013Background
- Chatman allege tardive dyskinesia after taking metoclopramide (generic Reglan) prescribed for GERD; suing Brand and Generic Defendants under §1332.
- Generic Defendants move for judgment on the pleadings; Brand Defendants move for summary judgment; issues focus on preemption and liability theories.
- Mensing held generic-labeling cannot be unilaterally updated; failure-to-warn claims against generic manufacturers are pre-empted.
- Chatman alleges multiple state-law claims against Generics: negligence, strict liability, warranties, misrepresentation, suppression of evidence, gross negligence.
- Chatman admits she did not take Reglan branded product; affects Brand Defendants’ potential liability under Mississippi law.
- Court grants Generic Defendants’ motion to dismiss; partial grant/denial for Brand Defendants: MPLA and some common-law claims dismissed; some misrepresentation claims survive against Brand Defendants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mensing preemption forecloses failure-to-warn against generics | Chatman’s failure-to-warn claim survives due to continued alleged failure to update labeling. | Mensing preempts all failure-to-warn claims against generic manufacturers; branding not responsible. | Mensing preempts failure-to-warn against Generics. |
| Do Mensing preemption extend to remaining state-law claims against Generics? | Claims rest on labeling deficiencies, not traditional failure-to-warn; could survive as negligence/other theories. | Remaining claims are disguised failure-to-warn and thus pre-empted. | All remaining state-law claims against Generics dismissed with prejudice. |
| Brand Defendants’ potential liability given Chatman did not take Reglan | Brand Defendants may be liable for misrepresentation or designer liability for labeling. | Brand Defendants cannot be liable as they did not manufacture the drug Chatman ingested; no duty to nonpatients. | Brand Defendants’ products-liability claims dismissed; misrepresentation claims survive to be addressed on Mississippi law duty analysis. |
| Is innovator/designer liability permitted under Mississippi law to reach Brand Defendants | Lawson v. Honeywell supports potential designer liability for labeling omissions/communications. | Honeywell limits to nonmanufacturing designers and cannot impose new duty on brand manufacturers for generic-drug harm. | Brand Defendants may face misrepresentation claims; duty analysis depends on relationships and theory of misrepresentation. |
Key Cases Cited
- PLIVA, Inc. v. Mensing, 131 S. Ct. 2567 (U.S. 2011) (federal preemption of generic-failure-to-warn claims)
- Wyeth v. Levine, 555 U.S. 555 (U.S. 2009) (brand-name labeling duties not pre-empted by federal law)
- Lawson v. Honeywell International, Inc., 75 So.3d 1024 (Miss. 2011) (designer liability; MPLA applicability to manufacturers/sellers; nonmanufacturers may face common-law claims)
- Foster v. American Home Products Corp., 29 F.3d 165 (4th Cir. 1994) (no duty to plaintiff injured by another manufacturer's product; foreseeability discourse)
- Demahy v. Schwarz Pharma, Inc., 702 F.3d 177 (5th Cir. 2012) (Mensing extended to all state-law claims against generics in Fifth Circuit)
- Lashley v. Pfizer, Inc., 877 F. Supp. 2d 466 (S.D. Miss. 2012) (discussion of MPLA preemption overlap with common-law negligence claims)
- Gardley-Starks v. Pfizer, Inc., 917 F. Supp. 2d 597 (N.D. Miss. 2013) (Mississippi state-law approach to generic labeling liability)
- Jowers v. Lincoln Elec. Co., 617 F.3d 346 (5th Cir. 2010) (Erie analysis and duty discussion in negligence claims)