This article was originally published on 4th March 2011.

On February 25, 2011, in the latest scrimmage between the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and compounding pharmacies, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held—in Medical Center Pharmacy v. Holder1—that the "waiver" doctrine precluded the FDA from arguing its right to conduct limited inspections of compounding pharmacies, which mix or compound drugs to fill unique prescriptions for patients.

In Medical Center Pharmacy, 10 pharmacies that compounded prescription drugs filed suit, challenging the FDA's authority to regulate compounded drugs.2 The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the pharmacies and held that the compounded drugs were not "new drugs" and the pharmacies were exempt from the FDA's inspection authority pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 374(a)(2)(A). The FDA appealed the holding. The Fifth Circuit reversed and remanded.3 On remand, the district court reversed its original inspection ruling that the FDA had authority to conduct limited inspections of pharmacy records notwithstanding § 374(a)(2)(A).4

The pharmacies appealed.5 On this second appeal, the Fifth Circuit held that the FDA forfeited the issue of its inspection authority when it failed to raise the objection in the first appeal.6 Further, the Fifth Circuit held that the district court's original inspection ruling—that "state-law-compliant pharmacies are exempt from FDA records inspections under 21 U.S.C. § 374(a)(2)(A)"—was not plainly erroneous, even in light of the Fifth Circuit's first ruling that compounded drugs were "new drugs."7

If you have any questions about this Alert, please contact Frederick (Rick) R. Ball any member of the Pharmaceutical, Pharmacy & Food industry group or the attorney in the firm with whom you are regularly in contact.

Footnotes

1. Medical Ctr. Pharm. v. Holder, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 3784 (5th Cir. Tex. Feb. 25, 2011).

2. id. at 3.

3. Id. at 4; see also Med. Ctr. Pharmacy v. Mukasey, 536 F.3d 383 (5th Cir. 2008).

4. Id. at 2, 5.

5. Id.

6. Id. at 8–9.

7. Id. at 2, 10.

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.