United States: Presumption-Of-Adequacy Defense Is Clarified And Reinforced

Last Updated: December 30 2011
Article by James J. Ferrelli and Paul M. da Costa

On Sept. 29, the Appellate Division took a significant step forward in clarifying and reinforcing the presumption-of-adequacy defense provided to manufacturers of prescription drugs under the New Jersey Product Liability Act (PLA). N.J.S.A.2A:58C-1 to -11. In Bailey v. Wyeth, et al., the court affirmed summary judgment in favor of the defendant drug manufacturers, dismissing the plaintiffs' claims for violations of the PLA. Those claims sought recovery for personal injuries based on allegations that the plaintiffs had sustained breast cancer from ingesting hormone replacement therapy (HRT) drugs. The plaintiffs asserted that the drug manufacturers failed to provide adequate warnings on the risks of breast cancer allegedly associated with HRT.

Under the PLA, a pharmaceutical company "that communicates adequate information on the dangers and safe use of the [prescription drug] product, ... taking into account the characteristics of, and the ordinary knowledge common to, the prescribing physician" will not be liable for failure to warn. N.J.S.A.2A:58C-4. Beyond this general statutory language, the PLA provides specific deference to the federal Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) determination of appropriate labeling for prescription drugs, by including a rebuttable presumption of adequacy in the statute. In other words, companies that comply with FDA labeling regulations are granted a rebuttable presumption that their labeling is adequate as a matter of law. N.J.S.A.2A:58C-4.

The PLA expressly states: "If the warning or instruction given in connection with a drug ... has been approved or prescribed by the federal Food and Drug Administration under the 'Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act,' ... a rebuttable presumption shall arise that the warning or instruction is adequate." N.J.S.A.2A:58C-4.

There was no dispute in Bailey that the PLA provides a rebuttable presumption of adequacy based on FDA approval of drug labeling. Rather, the issue in Bailey was the effect and operation of the rebuttable presumption under the PLA, as applied to the facts of the case.

The plaintiffs in Bailey appealed the trial court's finding that the presumption of adequacy applied such that the HRT drugs' warnings were adequate as a matter of law. They contended that the presumption could not apply prior to 1995 "because the combined use of estrogen and progesterone constituted an offlabel use of the drugs." Bailey v. Wyeth, Inc., et al., No. L-0999-06-MT (App. Div., p. 4, Sept. 29, 2011). Moreover, they argued that the trial court misconstrued the controlling case law regarding the application of the presumption of adequacy under the PLA.

The Appellate Division, however, affirmed substantially on the basis of "the well-considered and exhaustive opinion of Judge Happas."

On the defendant drug manufacturers' motions for summary judgment, the plaintiffs did not disagree that the PLA afforded the defendant drug manufacturers a rebuttable presumption of adequacy. Rather, they asserted that the presumption of adequacy "follows N.J. [Rule of Evidence] 301, whereby a plaintiff can rebut the presumption by showing some evidence tending to disprove the adequacy." The plaintiffs also contended that once they established there was some evidence tending to disprove the adequacy of the drug label, the presumption would become moot, thereby "leaving them with the burden of proving the label's inadequacy."

On the other hand, the defendants contended that N.J.R.E. 301 does not "purport to identify the substantive evidence required to overcome the presumption of adequacy under the PLA. Therefore, plaintiffs' reliance on expert opinions that defendants' warning should have said something different is misplaced because those opinions are not based on the evidentiary predicate required to overcome the presumption of adequacy."

In granting the defendants' summary judgment motions, the trial court emphasized that a plaintiff must proffer certain types of evidence demonstrating intentional misconduct by a defendant in order to rebut the presumption of adequacy. The court explained that this principle is rooted in three New Jersey cases: Perez v. Wyeth Lab., Inc., 161 N.J. 1, 24 (1999); Rowe v. Hoffmann-LaRoche, Inc., 189 N.J. 615, 626 (2007); and McDarby v. Merck, 401 N.J. Super. 10, 63 (App. Div. 2008). These cases establish that the evidence necessary to rebut the presumption of adequacy must establish one of two exceptions:

  • deliberate concealment or nondisclosure of after-acquired knowledge of harmful effects (the "Perez/Rowe exception") or
  • manipulation of the postmarket regulatory process (the "McDarby exception").

Among the plaintiffs' contentions were that the drug manufacturer should have done more to study the risks of combining the hormones estrogen and progesterone, studied the risk of breast cancer following increased use of the combined hormones and conducted additional studies. The court rejected this argument as too open-ended, as well as inconsistent with both the PLA and prior case law.

The court stressed that if it were to accept the plaintiffs' theory that the defendant drug manufacturers:

failed to test before filing its [new drug application], then in any failure to warn case, the presumption of adequacy accorded an FDA-approved drug labeling could be nullified by a plaintiff contending that the FDA would have approved a different warning had the defendant manufacturer done additional tests before filing its [new drug application].

Likewise, the court rejected the argument that evidence of a label's being strengthened following FDA approval was sufficient to rebut the presumption of adequacy. In particular, the court noted that inherent in the drug approval process is "the expectation that warnings will be revised and often strengthened over time." The court could not conclude that the legislature was oblivious to the fact that an approved drug's label could, and likely would, be strengthened the longer it is in the marketplace.

Additionally, the plaintiffs asserted that post-market regulatory manipulation was evidenced by (1) representations in the labeling that the manufacturer allegedly knew to be untrue, (2) alleged minimization and discounting of studies showing an increased risk of breast cancer, and (3) the manufacturers' involvement in "ghost writing" articles. The court determined such evidence was insufficient to establish intentional misconduct. Rather, the documentary evidence revealed that "the FDA actively exercised its regulatory authority and took prompt and effective action" in response to information and studies submitted to it.

With respect to purported "ghost written" medical articles, there was no dispute that the articles were subjected to "a rigorous peer review process and were factually and medically sound." Further, the court found that the FDA was well aware of the off-label use of the products, and the products' off-label prescription and usage did not rebut the statutory presumption. In sum, the court granted the defendant drug manufacturers' motions for summary judgment after concluding that the plaintiffs had not presented compelling evidence that would enable the presumption of adequacy to be rebutted.

In addition to the presumption-of-adequacy defense, Bailey also reaffirmed the expansive scope of the PLA, holding that the plaintiffs' Consumer Fraud Act, fraudulent-misrepresentation and negligent-misrepresentation claims were subsumed under the PLA. Quoting the Supreme Court's opinion in Sinclair v. Merck & Co., 195 N.J. 51, 66 (2008), the court reaffirmed that "despite the broad reach [it] give[s] to the CFA, the PLA is paramount when the underlying claim is one for harm caused by a product."

The Bailey decision solidifies the presumption-of-adequacy defense, which defendant drug manufacturers are likely to employ in all failure-to-warn cases involving a prescription drug approved by the FDA. Consequently, this decision appears to be a significant setback for plaintiffs seeking to bring failure-to-warn claims against drug companies in New Jersey.

Nevertheless, Bailey does not signal an end of all pharmaceutical products liability litigation in New Jersey. The court went to great lengths to distinguish the case from McDarby, noting that the FDA had been actively involved in the labeling and monitoring of the HRT drugs at issue "for several decades," and was well-informed of "the prevalent practice" of off-label prescriptions of HRT. The court also stressed that the risk of breast cancer was not "newly discovered" after FDA approval of the drugs, but was reflected previously in worldwide medical literature. Finally, the court found that the FDA remained "actively involved in regulating, monitoring, and requesting changes in the labeling" of HRT drugs, and there was no evidence that the defendants actively sought to dilute the labeling or intentionally withheld any risk information from the FDA.

Following Bailey, the availability of the presumption of adequacy as a defense will continue to be a highly fact-intensive inquiry. Extensive and detailed fact discovery will likely be a prerequisite to a summary-judgment motion based on the presumption of adequacy.

Therefore, both plaintiffs and defendant drug manufacturers should be prepared to engage in exhaustive fact discovery and should prepare their clients accordingly. Discovery will focus on facts pertinent to the two categories of intentional misconduct identified by Perez and its progeny: the drug manufacturer's deliberate concealment or failure to disclose after-acquired knowledge of harmful effects, and the drug manufacturer's "economically-driven manipulation of the post-market regulatory process."

James Ferrelliis a partner in the Cherry Hill, N.J., office of Duane Morris. Paul da Costais an associate in the firm's Newark, N.J., office. Ferrelli and da Costa concentrate their practices in the areas of product liability, complex business litigation, mass torts and class actions.

This article originally appeared in the New Jersey Law Journal and is republished here with permission from law.com.

This article is for general information and does not include full legal analysis of the matters presented. It should not be construed or relied upon as legal advice or legal opinion on any specific facts or circumstances. The description of the results of any specific case or transaction contained herein does not mean or suggest that similar results can or could be obtained in any other matter. Each legal matter should be considered to be unique and subject to varying results. The invitation to contact the authors or attorneys in our firm is not a solicitation to provide professional services and should not be construed as a statement as to any availability to perform legal services in any jurisdiction in which such attorney is not permitted to practice.

Duane Morris LLP, a full-service law firm with more than 700 attorneys in 24 offices in the United States and internationally, offers innovative solutions to the legal and business challenges presented by today's evolving global markets. Duane Morris LLP, a full-service law firm with more than 700 attorneys in 24 offices in the United States and internationally, offers innovative solutions to the legal and business challenges presented by today's evolving global markets. The Duane Morris Institute provides training workshops for HR professionals, in-house counsel, benefits administrators and senior managers.

*NOTES*: always put the last para in about the practice area (it's always called the 'Further Information'

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions