Schrock v. Wyeth, Inc.
727 F.3d 1273
| 10th Cir. | 2013Background
- Susan Schrock took generic metoclopramide (rather than the brand Reglan) multiple times between 2000–2005 and later developed tardive dyskinesia; she was told in May 2005 her symptoms were possibly related to metoclopramide.
- The Schrocks sued brand-name manufacturers (Wyeth, Schwarz) and generic manufacturers (PLIVA, Qualitest) alleging negligence, strict liability, misrepresentation, fraud, and breach of express and implied warranties.
- District court granted summary judgment/dismissed: Wyeth and Schwarz (no duty because plaintiff used generics), PLIVA (statute of limitations for non-warranty claims), and Qualitest (warranty claims dismissed as preempted); Schrocks appealed.
- The Tenth Circuit held the appeal timely (Rule 54(b) deficiency and Rule 59 tolling) and reviewed de novo the dismissals and summary judgments under Oklahoma law.
- Court concluded: non-warranty claims vs. generics were time-barred; warranty claims against generics (Qualitest) were preempted under federal impossibility preemption (Mensing/Bartlett); brand-name claims failed because Oklahoma would not impose a duty to consumers of competitors’ products.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of appeal | Schrocks: Rule 59(e) tolled all appeals; April 2009 order was not final | Wyeth/Schwarz: April 2009 judgment was final under Rule 54(b); appeal untimely | Notice of appeal timely; district court did not make required Rule 54(b) findings, and Rule 59(e) tolled appeal period |
| Statute of limitations for non-warranty claims vs. generics | Schrocks: limitations began later when symptoms worsened/diagnosis of tardive dyskinesia | PLIVA/Qualitest: discovery rule triggered in May 2005 when doctor tied symptoms to metoclopramide | Non-warranty claims against PLIVA and Qualitest barred by Oklahoma two-year statute (discovery rule applied to May 2005 knowledge) |
| Duty/liability of brand-name manufacturers to users of generics | Schrocks: Wyeth/Schwarz had duty—warnings, concealment, or general tort duties should extend to users of generics | Wyeth/Schwarz: no relationship to product plaintiff consumed; no duty under Oklahoma law; policy and precedent reject extending liability | Court predicts Oklahoma would not impose such duty; summary judgment for Wyeth and Schwarz affirmed |
| Preemption of breach-of-warranty claims against generic manufacturer (Qualitest) | Schrocks: warranty claims permissible under state law and not preempted; parallel federal/state requirements argument | Qualitest: Mensing and Bartlett make it impossible for generics to alter label or design, so state duties are preempted | Warranty claims against Qualitest preempted under impossibility preemption (generic duty of sameness; Bartlett extends Mensing to design-based claims) |
Key Cases Cited
- PLIVA, Inc. v. Mensing, 131 S. Ct. 2567 (U.S. 2011) (federal preemption: generic manufacturers cannot unilaterally change labels; failure-to-warn claims preempted)
- Mutual Pharmaceutical Co. v. Bartlett, 133 S. Ct. 2466 (U.S. 2013) (extends Mensing: design-defect and warning-based claims against generics can be preempted where federal law forbids altering composition or label)
- Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc., 552 U.S. 312 (U.S. 2008) (parallel/state-law claims vs. FDA regulation—distinction between preempted and parallel claims)
- English v. General Electric Co., 496 U.S. 72 (U.S. 1990) (impossibility preemption standard: cannot comply with both state and federal law)
- Daugherty v. Farmers Coop. Ass’n, 689 P.2d 947 (Okla. 1984) (Oklahoma discovery rule for accrual of statute of limitations in product cases)
- Oklahoma Turnpike Auth. v. Bruner, 259 F.3d 1236 (10th Cir. 2001) (Rule 54(b) certification requires two explicit findings by district court)