Eckhardt v. Qualitest Pharmaceuticals Inc.
889 F. Supp. 2d 901
S.D. Tex.2012Background
- Eckhardt and Yolanda Eckhardt filed suit on April 13, 2011, later amended; second amended complaint alleges tardive dyskinesia due to metoclopramide (Reglan) ingestion beginning in 2007.
- Plaintiffs allege various theories (negligence, misrepresentation, fraud) against brand-name and generic metoclopramide manufacturers.
- The court previously dismissed claims against generic manufacturers; Brands (Wyeth, Inc. and Schwarz Pharma, Inc.) moved for summary judgment on February 3, 2012.
- On December 17, 2011 the Eckhardts stipulated that Brands did not manufacture, distribute, or sell the Reglan ingested by Eckhardt.
- The court granted Brands’ summary judgment in its entirety, concluding Brands were not liable under Texas products liability or the other pleaded theories.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Brands can be liable under Texas products liability law | Eckhardt argues Brand liability not limited to manufacturing if failure to warn/representations caused injury | Brands are not manufacturers of the drug Eckhardt ingested; products liability statute applies only to own products | No; Brands not liable under products liability |
| Whether claims against Brands fall within products liability despite plaintiffs’ theories | Claims framed as negligence/misrepresentation/fraud; not products liability | All claims fall within the statutory scope of products liability | All claims are precluded as products liability claims |
| Whether Brands owed a duty for negligence or negligent misrepresentation | Brands caused harm through labeling information; duty exists | No duty owed by brand-name manufacturers for generic users of non-manufactured drugs | No duty; negligence/negligent misrepresentation claims barred |
| Whether there is any other theory that can support recovery | Claims not based on product manufacture could survive | Theories are precluded or subsumed under products liability or preemption | All remaining theories fail; grant of summary judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Firestone Steel Prods. Co. v. Barajas, 927 S.W.2d 608 (Tex. 1996) (manufacturer not liable for another’s product design in certain contexts)
- Aim, Inc. v. Aluminum Co. of America, 717 S.W.2d 588 (Tex. 1986) (predecessor analysis of product liability connections; persuasive authority)
- Kroger Co. v. Elwood, 197 S.W.3d 794 (Tex. 2006) (predictive on duty and product liability scope)
- Nabors Drilling, U.S.A., Inc. v. Escoto, 288 S.W.3d 401 (Tex. 2009) (context on state-law tort claims post-Mensing preemption)
- Pustejovsky v. Wyeth, Inc., 623 F.3d 271 (5th Cir. 2010) (preemption and products liability matter under federal review)
- Finnicum v. Wyeth, Inc., 708 F.Supp.2d 616 (E.D. Tex. 2010) (district court applying Texas products liability framework)