Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Deference to Agency Decisions: Lessons from Recent Pharmaceutical Pre-emption Decisions
One question that has been raised in pre-emption decisions is the degree of deference to be shown an agency's explicit statement that it intends certain failure-to-warn claims to be pre-empted. For example, in the pharmaceutical arena, the Food and Drug Administration ('FDA') through the Department of Justice ('DOJ') filed amicus briefs in several lawsuits to reiterate its position on pre-emption of state law tort claims. In these briefs, the United States stressed that in the context of warnings, 'more is not always better.' Amicus Brief for the United States, Kallas v. Pfizer, No. 04-00998 (D. Utah Sept. 29, 2005) at 28. The FDA's regulation of prescription drugs ensures each drug's optimal use by requiring inclusion of only scientifically substantiated warnings. Id. Plaintiffs' failure-to-warn claims therefore 'stand as an obstacle' to the FDA's accomplishment of its congressionally mandated purpose of ensuring the public health and are therefore pre-empted. See Id. The FDA has also stated its position on pre-emption in the preamble to its Rulemaking for Labeling requirement, which became effective on June 30, 2006. See 21 C.F.R. '10.85(d)(1) (2006). See articles infra by Lasker and Le Gower.
Recent pre-emption decisions, many of which are discussed infra and in the October 2006 issue of this publication, have shown varying amounts of deference given to the FDA's position. See, e.g., Colacicco v. Apotex, Inc., 432 F. Supp. 2d 514, 525 (E.D. Pa. 2006) (stressing that the FDA's final rule is entitled to considerable deference. See Le Gower article infra at 3); Jackson v. Pfizer, Inc., 432 F. Supp. 2d 964, 968 (D. Neb. 2006) (affording little to no deference to the FDA's repeated statements that, under the facts presented, pre-emption of plaintiffs' claims was required to protect the overall public health and safety and declining to give the amicus briefs filed by the FDA in prior Zoloft' cases 'force of law'); In re: Bextra and Celebrex Marketing Sales Practices and Prod. Liab. Litig., Civ. Action No. 05-1699 (N. D. Ca. Aug. 16, 2006) (dismissing failure-to-warn claim based in large part on deference to the FDA's view on pre-emption).
This article examines how the courts use agency decisions to make a pre-emption determination.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?