Sued for Someone Else’s Products? Alabama Says No.

American Legislator ^ | 5-13-15 | Amy Kjose Anderson

[ThethoughtsofGreg]

Alabama Governor Robert Bentley signed into law legislation that would protect drug manufacturers from being sued for products created by their generic brand competitors.

In January of 2013 and again last summer, the Alabama Supreme Court decided to allow an individual who used only the generic version of Reglan to sue the manufacturer of the brand name drug. Even though the brand manufacturer had no involvement in the production or sale of the generic drug, the company may be held liable for damages presumably caused by a third party competitor.

[Blood of Tyrants]

It would be like suing Ford because their car resembles a Chevy involved in an accident.

[Conscience of a Conservative]

This is a trickier issue than the linked article suggests. The Supreme Court has held that the manufacturers of generic drugs cannot be sued based on the warnings/instructions/etc. on their drugs, because, by law, generic drugs must have the same labeling as the name-brand drugs. So, while the person in the Alabama only took the generic drug, he was suing based on allegedly inaccurate/incomplete warnings, which are the responsibility of the brand name manufacturer.

[BitWielder1]

Should it not depend on whether the original brand product was flawed and faithfully copied or the brand product was good and the generic copy was bad.
If the same flaw exists in the brand name as in the generic product, then I'd say the brand manufacturer has a responsibility.

[Erik Latranyi]

So, while the person in the Alabama only took the generic drug, he was suing based on allegedly inaccurate/incomplete warnings, which are the responsibility of the brand name manufacturer.

No.

The FDA is responsible for all warnings, not the manufacturer. That is why we have the agency.

If the FDA is incompetent (like most agencies) then it should be eliminated.

This suit is nothing more than going after the deepest pockets possible as the generic manufacturer is probably tiny.

Also, can the plaintiff prove that the drug is identical to the original or were ingredients sourced elsewhere (which is very common), that could lead to a chemical interaction?

Unless the plaintiff can show some defect in the original patented product, and that the product taken is an exact duplicate, it has no merit whatsoever.

[backwoods-engineer]

This seems like common sense.

The courts allowing people to sue the inventor because they had a bad trip on the generic? That's like giving standing to someone who crashed a Ford, so they can sue GM too because both products are car. Complete idiocy.

But you watch-- the Feds will come down hard on Alabama for this.

[Dr. Sivana]

Also, can the plaintiff prove that the drug is identical to the original or were ingredients sourced elsewhere (which is very common), that could lead to a chemical interaction?

In MANY cases the generic uses different inactive ingredients. In many cases that is not a problem. But according to a neurologist I knew (before he died), in certain types of medications (e.g. anti-seizure meds) it can make a huge difference.

[Jemian]

Ping to the state list.

[Erik Latranyi]

I have seen, first-hand, microcrystalline cellulose purchased on the cheap from questionable sources with rat feces, falsified certificates and even greasy rags in it.

[Da Coyote]

Lawsuits like this are why the profession is regarded with less respect thanthat of a tur...er...Dorkbama producr lying on the sidewalk.

[gov_bean_ counter]

FR mail.