Valadez v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC
2025 IL App (1st) 241292-U
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2025Background
- Angela Valadez developed colorectal cancer after using Zantac and its generic (ranitidine) for years; she sued both brand-name and generic manufacturers, as well as retailers, in Illinois state court.
- Her claims included strict liability (failure to warn and design defect) and general negligence against all defendants; she also alleged negligent misrepresentation against the brand manufacturers.
- The trial court dismissed all claims against the non-brand (generic and retailer) defendants, finding preemption by federal law, and also dismissed the design defect claim against the brand defendants.
- A jury found in favor of the brand defendants on the remaining counts; Valadez appealed, challenging only the dismissals against non-brand defendants.
- The appellate court addressed jurisdictional challenges to the appeal, ultimately finding it had power to review the preemption dismissals.
- The court relied on federal law governing generic drug approval and labeling, which requires generic drugs to be identical to their brand-name counterparts, making it impossible for generic manufacturers to unilaterally change design or warnings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Federal preemption of strict liability/warning design claims (Counts I/II) | State law parallel to federal misbranding law allows claim; no direct conflict | Federal "duty of sameness" prevents generic makers from changing design/warnings; so, claims preempted | Claims are preempted; impossibility of complying with both laws per Mensing, Bartlett |
| Survival of negligence claim for transport/storage (Count III) | Preemption inapplicable to conduct not involving label/design; claim should proceed | Plaintiff barred by estoppel due to jury’s prior finding of contributory negligence | Negligence claim not preempted, but estopped by prior judgment; dismissal affirmed |
| Jurisdiction over appeal of pretrial dismissal | Liberal construction of notice of appeal; dismissal order a procedural step to final judgment | Don't have jurisdiction as non-brand defendants weren't in appeal caption | Jurisdiction proper; order reviewable |
| Sufficiency of plaintiff's complaint vs. generic defendants (application of Guvenoz exception) | Like Guvenoz, drug should not have been sold at all; preemption inapplicable | Guvenoz inapposite; Valadez pleaded alternative warnings/designs, not outright unsafety | Guvenoz exception doesn't apply; claims preempted |
Key Cases Cited
- Pliva, Inc. v. Mensing, 564 U.S. 604 (2011) (held state law failure-to-warn claims against generic manufacturers are preempted by federal "duty of sameness")
- Mutual Pharmaceutical Co. v. Bartlett, 570 U.S. 472 (2013) (design defect claims against generic drug manufacturers preempted when compliance with state law would require altering the federally approved design)
- Suvada v. White Motor Co., 32 Ill. 2d 612 (1965) (adopted strict liability in Illinois per Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A)
- General Motors Corp. v. Pappas, 242 Ill. 2d 163 (2011) (defining appellate court’s scope of review via notice of appeal)
- Talarico v. Dunlap, 177 Ill. 2d 185 (1997) (standard for collateral estoppel application)
- Obermeier v. Northwestern Memorial Hospital, 2019 IL App (1st) 170553 (presumption under general verdict rule)