• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Tragic Facts Make Bad Law: Court Rejects Expert View on Drug Labels

    The decision in the blockbuster case of Wyeth v. Levine is just out, and Lyle Dennison’s early commentary is here.

    To summarize: In an opinion by Stevens, joined by Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, the Court held that FDA approval of a drug’s labeling does not preempt state-law failure-to-warn claims. The plaintiff, Diana Levine, developed gangrene after her arm was injected with Phenergan, a drug manufactured by the defendant, Wyeth. Levine sued in Vermont state court, claiming that Wyeth had failed to provide adequate warning about the risks of the method by which the drug was administered, and the jury awarded damages. Wyeth appealed, arguing that the Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act, as well as FDA regulations requiring FDA approval of drug labels, preempted the state-law claim, providing a complete defense to it. The Court today rejected that argument.

    After reading the opinion, and refamiliarizing myself with the facts and law of the case, I share Alito’s view: “This case illustrates,” his dissenting opinion begins, “that tragic facts make bad law.”

    Getting to five in this case–that is, winning in the Court–was going to require Kennedy and Breyer, given Thomas’s well-known skepticism of implied preemption on textual grounds (on display today, in fact). Breyer and Kennedy are not resolutely opposed to preemption (as Justice Stevens seems to be), and the 4-4 split in Warner-Lambert v. Kent provided some indication that the two might be open to it in the drug context. (Justice Roberts sat that one out.)

    So what was different this time around? The facts, or at least what the media made of them. Story after story (see, e.g., here and here) focused on Diana Levine, a musician who lost her arm to gangrene after being administered Phenergan, Wyeth’s drug, via IV-Push injection. But in that simple summary, so many facts are lost:

    • The drug’s label did warn about the risk of gangrene due to “intra-arterial injection”–exactly what happened to Levine.
    • The doctor who injected the case used a disfavored, though not contraindicated (i.e., banned) method of injecting the drug.
    • The doctor injected twice the maximum labeled dose.
    • The doctor continued to inject the drug despite Levine’s complaints of pain.
    • IV-push, the method of administration at issue in the case, is a particularly quick-acting and effective way to administer the drug, though it does carry with it some (labeled) risks, such as gangrene.

    In short, then, this really wasn’t about “failure to warn”–because the warnings were there–but failure to outright ban a method of administration that already carries heavy warnings but that the FDA, balancing all the interests at stake, determined should still remain available.

    (And if that method is misused, as seems to have been the case here? That’s a malpractice claim.)

    But there’s no way to square today’s decision with the FDA’s role in making these kinds of determinations. The majority, unfortunately, sweeps that fact under the rug, arguing (unconvincingly) that expert determinations and jury decisions on drug safety can somehow coexist.

    Hard facts make bad law, goes the old saw, and now we have Alito’s new formulation of that lament. If only the facts of the case, rather than the facts of the plaintiffs’ bar’s media blitz, had carried the day, the Court might not have found this case so hard or made such bad law.

    Posted in Legal [slideshow_deploy]

    2 Responses to Tragic Facts Make Bad Law: Court Rejects Expert View on Drug Labels

    1. Xanthippas says:

      "In short, then, this really wasn’t about “failure to warn”–because the warnings were there–but failure to outright ban a method of administration that already carries heavy warnings but that the FDA, balancing all the interests at stake, determined should still remain available."

      Those facts are all true (thought bullet point one implies that the doctor administered an inter-arterial injection, which is not the case.) Nonetheless, a Vermont jury found Wyeth to be negligent. You're arguing not about the merits of pre-emption, but about the jury's finding in the case. Which is fine I suppose, but your argument hardly bolsters the case Wyeth and other drug manufacturers should be protected by the FDA's approval of their warning labels.

      Incidentally, there was a malpractice claim against the doctor which was settled out of court.

    2. Spiritof76, New Hamp says:

      Don't worry about Wyeth and all the other pharmaceutical companies as we become a socialized medical care country. I think the socialist Vermont would feel elated. There will not be any new drugs under the socialists. I don't know of any new drug that came out of Cuba, Russia or Europe, for that matter.

      Under the pending socialist medical care, a person like Diane would not have to worry about any risk-laden injection because they would say it wouldn't be worth it.

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.

    ×