Metz v. Wyeth LLC
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135667
M.D. Fla.2011Background
- Plaintiffs Barbara Metz and Donald Metz sue Wyeth LLC, Schwarz Pharma, Inc. (brand Defendants) and Actavis Elizabeth, LLC (Purepac) for injuries from metoclopramide.
- Wyeth and Schwarz marketed Reglan (brand-name metoclopramide); Actavis sold a generic version.
- Ms. Metz ingested generic metoclopramide, not Reglan; undisputed fact in admissions responses.
- Plaintiffs allege negligence, strict liability, warranties, misrepresentation, and negligence per se against Brand Defendants.
- Brand Defendants move for summary judgment, arguing Florida law bars claims when only generics were ingested.
- Court grants summary judgment for Brand Defendants, applying Florida law and Mensing-related preemption/foreseeability principles.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are brand-name manufacturers liable for injuries from generic drugs? | Metz rely on brand misrepresentations, not composition. | Florida law bars claims against brand for injuries from generics. | Brand Defendants granted summary judgment |
| Does Mensing alter Florida law on brand liability for generics? | Mensing warrants broader liability. | Mensing does not change Florida law on brand duty. | Mensing does not alter result; Florida law remains as stated |
| Do plaintiffs’ claims fall outside the general rule against brand liability for generics? | Claims concern brand misrepresentations, not drug composition. | Rule precludes any brand liability where generics were used. | Claims barred; not recoverable against Brand Defendants |
| Is loss of consortium viable against Brand Defendants? | Loss of consortium should be recoverable independent of brand liability. | No reciprocal action where plaintiff has no brand defendant liability. | Loss of consortium claim also fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Levine v. Wyeth, Inc., 684 F.Supp.2d 1338 (M.D. Fla. 2010) (federal court recognizing brand liability limitations with generics)
- Conte v. Wyeth, Inc., 168 Cal.App.4th 89 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (Cal. appellate on brand duty and defective warnings)
- Kellogg v. Wyeth, 762 F.Supp.2d 694 (D. Vt. 2010) (duty to use care for warnings extends to generics)
- Smith v. Wyeth, Inc., 657 F.3d 420 (6th Cir. 2011) (brand name manufacturer owes no duty to consumers who used generics)
- Conley v. Boyle Drug Co., 570 So.2d 275 (Fla. 1990) (precludes liability absent proof brand manufactured the product)