Joyce Fullington v. Pfizer, Inc.
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 14193
| 8th Cir. | 2013Background
- Fullington used metoclopramide and developed tardive dyskinesia, a neurological disorder.
- She sued Brand Defendants (Pfizer, Wyeth, Schwarz, Alaven) and Generic Defendants (PLIVA, Mutual) under Arkansas product liability theories.
- District court granted summary judgment to Brand Defendants, citing Arkansas product identification requirement since she didn’t ingest Reglan-made products.
- Post-Mensing, the district court dismissed Generic Defendants’ claims as preempted failure-to-warn claims, with lingering questions about a failure-to-update claim and other theories.
- Fullington amended her complaint; court dismissed some claims but allowed reconsideration of non-warning design defect and implied warranty theories under Arkansas law.
- On appeal, the Eighth Circuit affirmed dismissal of Brand Defendants, reversed dismissal of non-warning design defect and implied warranty claims against Generic Defendants, and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Product identification requirement against Brand Defendants | Fullington argues Brand Defendants can be liable for injuries from a competitor's generic product. | Brand Defendants are immune absent their own product involvement; Arkansas requires identification. | Affirmed: no liability without product identification. |
| Preemption of failure-to-warn claims for Generic Defendants | Failure-to-warn claims should survive under Arkansas law, not preempted. | Bartlett and Mensing preempt failure-to-warn for generics as labeling cannot be independently changed. | Affirmed: failure-to-warn claims are preempted. |
| Viability of non-warning design defect and implied warranty claims against Generic Defendants | Design defect and breach of implied warranty claims are viable independent of warnings. | Claims are inadequately pleaded or fall under preemption as failure-to-warn. | Reversed: determine viability of non-warning design defect and implied warranty claims; remand for further consideration in light of Bartlett. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell v. Pfizer, Inc., 716 F.3d 1087 (8th Cir. 2013) (holds product identification required; similar to Arkansas law)
- PLIVA, Inc. v. Mensing, 131 S. Ct. 2567 (U.S. 2011) (impossibility preemption; generics cannot unilaterally change labeling)
- Bartlett v. Mutual Pharmaceutical Co., 133 S. Ct. 2466 (U.S. 2013) (design defect preemption and warnings landscape for generics)
- Boerner v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Co., 894 F.3d 594 (8th Cir. 2005) (Arkansas strict liability against product supplier; standard for defect claims)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (S. Ct. 2009) (pleading standard; plausibility requirement)