Federal Court Offers Cogent Analysis of Warning Causation in Drug Case

A New Jersey federal court granted summary judgment last week to a pharmaceutical defendant in a failure to warn case. See Baker et al. v. APP Pharmaceuticals LLP et al., No. 3:09-cv-05725 (D.N.J.).  The case should be interesting to our readers in part because there really isn't a huge amount of law on warning causation in the busy jurisdiction of New Jersey.

During a hospital stay, plaintiff Baker was administered the commonly prescribed drug heparin. Heparin is an anticoagulant: it prevents blood clots. The opinion noted that the drug is associated  with heparin induced thrombocytopenia (“HIT”), or low blood platelet count. HIT may in a few patients progress to a more serious adverse reaction called heparin induced thrombocytopenia  and thrombosis (“HITT”). Plaintiff received heparin during and after her surgery, and a few days later her  platelet count was down; but according to the opinion it was not known at what point her platelet count reached serious levels because no one measured her platelet level for several days, despite the hospital’s stated protocol to monitor a patient’s platelet count periodically in order to detect possible HIT.

Plaintiff suffered injury to her left foot and leg, and thereafter sued several manufacturers of heparin, asserting they failed to adequately warn of the serious side-effects associated with heparin use. The parties agreed that defendant’s heparin has always contained FDA-approved labeling, including risk disclosures and warnings. In 2001, the heparin label specifically disclosed the risk of HIT and HITT in the “Precautions” section.  In 2005, defendant submitted a supplemental NDA via the “changes being effected” process to include additional HIT and HITT information the “Warnings” section of its heparin labeling. See 21 C.F.R. 314.70. The FDA suggested several alterations, all of which defendant incorporated into the labeling, and the FDA found the updated labeling “acceptable” in June 2007. 

In New Jersey, product liability actions are governed by the New Jersey Products Liability Act (“PLA”). N.J. Stat. Ann. §2A:58C-1, et seq. Under the PLA, in failure to warn cases involving prescription drugs, if the warning or instruction given in connection with a drug has been approved or prescribed by the FDA, there is a rebuttable presumption that the warning is adequate. This is no ordinary rebuttable presumption, remarked the court. Compliance with FDA regulations gives rise to “what can be denominated as a super-presumption.” Kendall v. Hoffman-La Roche, Inc., 36 A.3d 541, 544 (N.J. 2012).  Indeed, the PLA’s presumption that an FDA-approved prescription drug label is adequate “is stronger and of greater evidentiary weight than the customary presumption referenced" in the rules of evidence. Bailey v. Wyeth, Inc., 37 A.3d 549, 571 (N.J. Super. Ct. Law Div. 2008), aff’d sub nom. Deboard v. Wyeth, 28 A.3d 1245 (N.J. Super Ct. App. Div. 2011).

In this case, there is no dispute that the heparin labeling was approved by the FDA. Therefore, defendant was entitled to the statutory presumption that its heparin labeling satisfied its duty to warn. Plaintiff tried to rebut the presumption, first, with allegations of deliberate concealment or nondisclosure of after-acquired knowledge of harmful effects by the pharmaceutical company, and second with allegations of an economically-driven manipulation of the post-market regulatory process. See McDarby v. Merck & Co., Inc., 949 A.2d 223, 256 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2008).

However, significantly, all of the information plaintiff accused defendant of withholding was publicly available in published scientific and medical literature.  And defendant did in fact disclose much
of what plaintiff claimed was deliberately concealed or withheld. For example, when submitting its proposed updated label to the FDA in 2005, Baxter included several scientific articles and a number of adverse event reports relating to HIT and HITT.  As to the second rebuttal effort, plaintiff offered no real evidence that Baxter rejected the FDA’s proposed changes to heparin labeling, or asked pharmaceutical representatives to avoid discussing HIT and HITT when speaking to physicians, or manipulated the conclusions of heparin clinical trials, or did anything sufficient to "manipulate" the regulatory process.

The more interesting part of the opinion arises from the fact that even if a plaintiff is able to demonstrate that a prescription drug’s warning is inadequate, that plaintiff still must prove that the inadequate warning proximately caused her injury. See Campos v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 485 A.2d 305, 311 (N.J. 1984). “To satisfy this burden, a plaintiff must show that adequate warnings would have altered her doctors’ decision to prescribe.” Strumph v. Schering Corp., 606 A.2d 1140 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1992) (Skillman, J., dissenting), rev’d 626 A.2d 1090 (1993) (adopting Judge Skillman’s dissent).

The court noted that “a heeding presumption may be applicable to claims of failure to warn of the dangers of pharmaceuticals.” McDarby, 949 A.2d at 267. A heeding presumption allows one to presume that the plaintiff’s physician would not have prescribed the drug to the plaintiff if there had been an adequate warning; in other words, the plaintiff’s physician would have heeded the adequate warning. The heeding presumption is rebuttable and can be rebutted if the plaintiff’s physician was aware of the risks of the drug that he prescribed, and having conducted a risk-benefit analysis, nonetheless determined its use to be warranted. Also. a manufacturer who allegedly fails to warn the medical community of a particular risk may nonetheless be relieved of liability under the learned intermediary doctrine if the prescribing physician either did not read the warning at all, or if the physician was aware of the risk from other sources and already considered the risk in prescribing the product. In that context, the physician’s conduct is the superseding, intervening cause that breaks the chain of liability between the manufacturer and the patient.

Here, the doctor stood by his decision to administer heparin to Mrs. Baker. She required heparin by standard medical procedure, and well documented clinical knowledge, at several different  points during her operation and for several different reasons, he opined.  Since he was aware of the risks of the drug that he prescribed and, having conducted a risk-benefit analysis, nonetheless determined its use to be warranted, the presumption was rebutted as a matter of law.

Moreover, the prescriber testified in his deposition that he does not read the label of drugs he frequently prescribes, which includes heparin. Therefore, a different warning would not have made a difference in plaintiff's treatment or outcome because there was no evidence he would have reviewed it.

Finally, there was a third causation problem; the opinion notes that it was undisputed that, despite doctors orders, the Hospital failed to follow its own heparin treatment protocol. Had that monitoring occurred, Mrs. Baker’s physicians would have discovered the onset of HIT sooner. Plaintiff's own expert admitted that her injuries “would have been substantially mitigated” with a “good chance of avoiding" them.   Therefore, plaintiff failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact that it was the heparin labeling, as opposed to the conduct of the hospital, that caused her injury.

 Summary judgment on the warning claim.

Beverage Maker Not Liable for Alleged Failure to Warn

The maker of  a drink containing alcohol and caffeine was not liable to a woman allegedly injured when the driver of the motorcycle on which she was a passenger crashed, after the driver consumed the beverage.  See Cook v. MillerCoors LLC, No. 11-1488 (M.D. Fla., 10/28/11).

The operator of the motorcycle in the accident was killed, and plaintiff Cook, who was a passenger, was injured.  Prior to the crash, the driver allegedly had consumed several “Sparks”
alcoholic beverages containing caffeine and other stimulants, manufactured by defendant.

Cook argued that alcoholic beverages such as Sparks containing stimulants are “uniquely dangerous” because they appeal to younger drinkers and because the addition of caffeine enables one to drink more alcohol without feeling as intoxicated as one normally would. Thus, she alleged, consumers of these beverages are more likely to “engage in dangerous behavior such as driving.”  She asserted the driver did not appear impaired, even though toxicology reports from his autopsy revealed that his blood alcohol level was 0.10 at the time of the crash.

Defendant responded that the risks associated with operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol are well known; therefore, it could not be held responsible for the operator's choice to consume Sparks then illegally operate his motorcycle. The addition of other ingredients to the beverage did not lessen his responsibility to refrain from operating his motorcycle after having consumed the alcohol, and his actions, not the manufacture of Sparks,
proximately caused Cook’s injuries.  The crux of the defense motion to dismiss thus was that there is no cause of action against a manufacturer of alcoholic beverages for injuries resulting from their consumption because the effects of alcohol consumption are well known. With a response from plaintiff that the legion of such holdings in courts everywhere apply to “conventional” alcoholic beverages, not to an alcoholic beverage mixed with stimulants which allegedly suppress the consumer’s subjective awareness of alcohol’s well-known effects.

Regarding the failure to warn theory, a plaintiff must establish the existence of a duty. A manufacturer’s duty to warn arises when there is a need to inform consumers of dangers of which they are unaware.  The effects of alcohol and the need to not drink and drive are universally known.  While plaintiff argued about the unconventionality of this product, plaintiff did not and could not allege that the driver was unaware that he was drinking alcohol. His alleged subjective awareness of the speed or impact of those effects did not alter the legal reasoning of precedent that holds that there is no duty to warn because of the universal recognition of all potential dangers associated with alcohol. 

Plaintiff also failed to adequately allege how the product was unreasonably dangerous for the design defect claim. The effects of alcohol are universally and objectively well known, irrespective of the operator's alleged subjective awareness of them. The defectiveness of a design is determined based on an objective standard, not from the viewpoint of any specific user, said the court.

Moreover, plaintiff's theories failed as to proximate cause. Plaintiff alleged that the manufacturer's negligence caused the driver to become intoxicated to the point of impairment,
causing the crash and Cook’s injuries. In Florida, however, voluntary drinking of alcohol is the proximate cause of an injury from an intoxicated driver, rather than the manufacture or sale of those intoxicating beverages to that person.  This doomed the negligence claim.

Readers can readily see why the court was reluctant to make an exception to the rule for the "unconventional" beverage.  There are hundreds of alcohol-containing products that are not "conventional" in one way or another, by taste, ingredients, color, manufacturing process, advertising... To shift responsibility from the person who over-consumes one of these and then drives impaired is to send the absolutely wrong policy message.

Courts have typically recognized no duty on the maker, regardless of plaintiff's attempt to differentiate either themselves or the product. See, e.g., Malek v. Miller Brewing Co., 749 S.W.2d 521 (Tex. App. 1988) (finding no duty to warn despite claim that advertising led plaintiff to believe that “Lite” beer was less intoxicating than other beer); Pemberton v. Am. Distilled Spirits Co., 664 S.W.2d 690 (Tenn. 1984); Greif v. Anheuser-Busch Cos., Inc., 114 F. Supp. 2d 100 (D. Conn. 2000)(particular, alleged tolerance of an individual consumer); MaGuire v. Pabst Brewing Co., 387 N.W.2d 565 (Iowa 1986).


 

State Court Finds No Duty to Spouse of Exposed Worker

Delaware's supreme court held last month that an employer owes no duty of care to an employee's spouse, who allegedly contracted asbestos-related disease from exposure to her spouse's work clothes. Price v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., No. 719, 2009 (Del. 7/11/11).

Bobby Price worked as a maintenance technician in defendant's facility from 1957 until 1991. During his employment, Mr. Price allegedly worked with and around products containing asbestos. Allegedly, Mr. Price transported asbestos fibers home on his clothing, vehicle, and skin. Patricia Price, his wife, alleged that years of living with her husband, and handling and washing his work clothes, exposed her to the fibers. Mrs. Price claimed to suffer from bilateral interstitial fibrosis and bilateral pleural thickening of the lungs. These maladies, she claimed, stemmed directly from her exposure to the asbestos dust and fibers her husband brought home from work.

Plaintiff sued, alleging that the company wrongfully released asbestos from its plant and that she was a reasonably foreseeable victim of its asserted misconduct. 

To prevail on a negligence claim under Delaware law, a plaintiff must prove that a defendant owed her a duty of care, the respondent breached that duty, and the breach proximately caused an injury. Whether a duty exists is a question of law, typically. To determine whether one party owed another a duty of care, Delaware courts look to the Restatement (Second) of Torts for guidance.  Negligent conduct involves either (1) an act which the actor as a reasonable person should recognize as involving an unreasonable risk of causing an invasion of an interest of another (described in some cases as misfeasance), or (2) a failure to do an act which is necessary for the protection or assistance of another and which the actor is under a duty to do (sometimes described as nonfeasance).

Plaintiffs moved to amend the complaint to state a claim based on an asserted theory of misfeasance—that the release of asbestos was carried into a worker's home — rather than a claim of nonfeasance based on a failure to warn. The Delaware court noted that in the case of misfeasance, the party who does an affirmative act owes a general duty to others to exercise reasonable care, but, in the case of nonfeasance, the party who merely omits to act owes no general duty to others unless there is a "special relationship" between the actor and the other which gives rise to the duty.

DuPont contended that as a matter of substance the amended complaint really alleged  nonfeasance—not misfeasance. Again, in order to recover for nonfeasance, a plaintiff must specifically allege a “special relationship” between herself and the defendant. Having not alleged any “special relationship” in this case, DuPont argued, Price’s amendments were futile because they failed to state a claim as a matter of law.

The court noted that Price’s allegations, stripped of all reformatory re-characterization, were that: (1) Mr. Price, an employee of defendant, worked with and around products containing asbestos for 34 years, (2) asbestos fibers settled on his skin, clothing, and vehicle, (3) defendant allegedly did not provide locker rooms, uniforms, or warnings to the Prices regarding the dangers of asbestos, (4) defendant did not prevent Mr. Price from transporting the asbestos fibers home on his skin, clothing, and vehicle, and (5) Mrs. Price, because she lived with Mr. Price and washed his clothes, developed disease. These alleged acts were pure nonfeasance—nothing more. Dupont’s alleged failures to prevent Mr. Price from taking asbestos fibers home or to warn the Prices about the dangers of asbestos did not rise to the level of affirmative misconduct required to allege a claim of misfeasance. No amount of semantics can turn nonfeasance into misfeasance or
vice versa.

Having alleged only nonfeasance, Price needed to allege that a “special relationship” existed between her and DuPont in order for DuPont to owe her a duty of care. But the relationship between Mrs. Price and DuPont did not fit any of the recognized “special relationships”
giving rise to a duty to aid or protect. Just because her husband worked for DuPont for over thirty years, or DuPont provided health insurance to her as Mr. Price’s spouse, or DuPont sponsored company picnics and participated in programs promoting a "family friendly" workplace, a special relationship did not exist. 

The plaintiff's bar has been aggressive in efforts to create new methods of recovery from asbestos exposures -- new defendants, new legal theories, new injuries, new plaintiffs. For once, a court has put the brakes on this seemingly endless expansion. 

 


 

State Court Upholds Questionable Bystander Liability Claim

The Montana Supreme Court recently upheld the imposition of liability on a bat manufacturer for allegedly failing to warn about the dangers of aluminum bats. Patch v. Hillerich & Bradsby Co., d/b/a Louisville Slugger, No. DA 10-0051 (Mont. 7/21/11).  Bad facts made bad law here. 

Many people consider "The Natural" to be one of the greatest sports movies of all time, and those that think deep thoughts have asserted that the screenplay  (presumably not the 1952 book too?) was based in part on the story of Sir Percival from the Arthurian myths, with the broken bat "Wonderboy" taking the part of the knight's broken sword.  Had Roy Hobbs used an aluminum bat, that aspect of the story would have been lost. Since their introduction in the early 1970's, aluminum bats have become quite popular in youth and amateur adult baseball and softball markets. The new bats are often touted as having a wider sweet spot, more power, better feel, or higher performance. It is pretty much accepted that balls come off metal bats faster than they do from wood bats, but this aspect of performance has fueled an ongoing metal/wood issue in some circles.

While pitching in an American Legion baseball game on July 25, 2003, the eighteen year-old plaintiff was struck in the head by a batted ball that was hit using H&B’s model CB-13 aluminum bat. Tragically, plaintiff died from his injuries. In 2006, Brandon’s parents sued H&B, claiming H&B’s model CB-13 aluminum bat was in a defective condition because of the alleged enhanced risks associated with its use: It increased the velocity speed of a batted ball when it left the bat, thus decreasing infielders’ reaction times, which allegedly resulted in a greater number of high energy batted balls in the infield.

The matter was tried in October, 2009, and the design defect and failure to warn claims were submitted to the jury, which concluded that the model CB-13 aluminum bat was not designed defectively, but determined the bat was in a defective condition due to H&B’s failure to warn of the enhanced risks associated with its use. They awarded plaintiffs an $850,000 verdict on their failure to warn claim. Defendant appealed.

The key issue was whether a failure to warn claim can be brought by a bystander -- plaintiff was not the consumer nor the user. H&B asserted that only the individual batting (actual user) and the individual who purchased the bat (actual consumer) could assert a failure to warn claim.  The court disagreed, saying this interpretation of the terms user and consumer is somehow contrary to the definition of the terms as contained in the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A. This state court’s products liability jurisprudence had recognized that a failure to warn claim may be brought by some persons who are not actual purchasers or users of a product; previous plaintiffs included those who are passively enjoying the benefit of the product, as in the case of passengers in automobiles or airplanes, as well as those who are utilizing it for the purpose of doing work upon it.  "The realities of the game of baseball" supported, said the court, the decision to submit the failure to warn claim to the jury. The bat was deemed an indispensable part of the game. The risk of harm accompanying the bat’s use extends beyond the user, beyond a player who holds the bat in his or her hands. A warning of the bat’s risks to only the batter standing at the plate inadequately communicates the potential risk of harm posed by the bat’s increased exit speed, concluded the court. In this context, all of the players, including plaintiff, were deemed "users or consumers" placed at risk by the increased exit speed caused by H&B’s bat.

Defendant also argued that plaintiff could not establish causation - reading and heeding the warning. The court held that H&B’s argument erroneously assumed that placing a warning directly on the bat is the only method to provide a warning. While placing a warning directly on a product is certainly one method of warning, other methods of warning exist, including, but not limited to, issuing oral warnings and placing warnings in advertisements, posters, and media releases. Davis v. Wyeth Laboratories, Inc., 399 F.2d 121, 131 (9th Cir. 1968) (“[O]ther means of communication such as advertisements, posters, releases to be read and signed . . . or oral warnings . . . could easily have been undertaken . . . .”). Such warnings, if issued by H&B in this case, said the court, could have communicated to all players the potential risk of harm associated with H&B’s bat’s alleged increased exit speed.

What the court here called a "flexible" approach to causation really eviscerates one of the fundamental elements of the claim. The court allowed the jury to infer without any basis in fact that plaintiff would have heeded a warning had one been given-- apparently because he was deceased, and thus real proof of causation was hard to find. There is no basis to allow a jury simply to express sympathy for a tragic accident victim,as here there was not sufficient proof that the plaintiff would have adjusted his behavior after receiving the warning to avoid the injury. The decision puts this court in a tiny minority of states that recognize some kind of bystander failure to warn liability, which most courts agree is unworkable and contrary to the reality of modern commerce.

The concurrence correctly noted that plaintiff did not articulate specifically what a warning should have contained and what message should have been given. Statements to the effect that the bat would hit balls at unusually fast speeds or unusually far distances are the kind of messages accompanying usual product advertising and are not likely to change a player's/plaintiff's behavior. Moreover, they are precisely the qualities in a bat which baseball teams and players seek out. Plaintiff could not articulate specifically how a warning would have changed the result here, in other words, how the failure to warn caused this accident.

H&B also argued that because plaintiff had been hit by batted balls before, he knew he could be hit and, therefore, assumed the risk when he continued playing baseball. The court explained that assumption of the risk defense in this state is inapplicable as a matter of law without evidence the victim actually knew he or she would suffer serious injury or death, and, knowing that, the victim voluntarily exposed himself or herself to the danger. Lutz v. Natl. Crane Corp., 267 Mont. 368, 379-80, 884 P.2d 455, 461-62 (1994). What the victim actually knew is evaluated using a subjective standard in Montana. Here, said the court, there was no evidence that plaintiff actually knew he would be seriously injured or killed when pitching to a batter using one of H&B’s model CB-13 aluminum bats. He knew he could be hit with a screaming line drive, but not that it could injure him seriously?

Plaintiff's apparent theory, as articulated in closing argument, was that H&B should have
advertised that its bat “could kill.” And the inference which plaintiff asked the jury to draw in order to establish causation was that, following the publishing of a warning “that this bat could kill,” the parents would have prohibited Brandon from playing baseball.  That tells you how unworkable the theory is. This was a terrible accident on a baseball field, the kind of accident that has also occurred with wood bats. The bat was not defective. It was made in accordance with the rules approved for play by baseball's organizing and governing bodies. Bad facts again make bad law.
 


 

State Supreme Court Upholds Verdict For Device Maker

The Connecticut Supreme Court recently took a second look at a case offering guidance on the application of the learned intermediary defense, and affirming a judgment for pacemaker manufacturer Medtronic Inc. See Hurley v. Heart Physicians PC, 298 Conn. 371, 2010 WL 3488962 (9/14/10).

The plaintiff was born with a congenital complete heart block condition that interfered with her heart's capacity to produce a safe heart rhythm. When she was seven days old, her physicians implanted a cardiac pacemaker manufactured by the defendant. Every few years, plaintiff received a new pacemaker manufactured by the defendant, allowing her to grow and live a normal life. When the plaintiff was fourteen years old, her pacemaker's elective replacement indicator signaled that the pacemaker battery was nearing the end of its life cycle and was wearing down. The plaintiff's cardiologist asked a representative of the defendant, to attend an examination of the plaintiff and to test the battery in her pacemaker. In so doing, in part because of issues about replacing the entire unit, the rep allegedly presented to the doctor the option of lowering the rate. He explained that, by taking the rate from sixty to forty paces per minute, it would give them more time before a device would hit the "end point," and thus more time to work on the "replacement situation."

The approach was taken, but a few weeks later the plaintiff went into cardiac arrest while at school, and allegedly suffered permanent brain damage.  Plaintiff sued, and the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the device company on the failure to warn claim, based on the learned intermediary doctrine. The state supreme court reversed this judgment with respect to the plaintiff's product liability claim, finding that an issue of material fact existed as to whether the rep's words and actions were in derogation of the pacemaker's technical manual --whether he undercut the warning that was given. After remand, a jury trial was held, and the jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant. The trial court rendered judgment in accordance with the verdict, and this (second) appeal followed.

The plaintiff's claim before the trial court (both times) was based on the assertion that the defendant's representative had made statements to plaintiff's treating physician, and had engaged in conduct (recommending that the pacemaker's function level be reduced), which nullified the warnings regarding battery replacement that were contained in the pacemaker's technical manual.  The plaintiff claimed that, because the statements and conduct nullified the pacemaker's adequate published warnings about the risks inherent in setting the pacemaker at a reduced level, the defendant had, net, failed to properly warn her of the potential risks associated with reducing the pacemaker's function in lieu of replacing the battery.  Defendant contended that the plaintiff's physician was a learned intermediary and stood in the best position to evaluate and to warn the plaintiff of any risks associated with reducing the pacemaker's function and, as a result, it was not their obligation to warn the plaintiff.

Concerning the trial after remand, plaintiff claimed that the trial court improperly required her to prove that the rep's advice and conduct “actually contradicted,” and therefore “vitiated” and “nullified” the warnings in the manual. She contended that she should have been required to prove only that his actions were “inconsistent” with the manual, which she contended was a less onerous requirement than the one applied by the trial court.

On appeal again, the state supreme court found that the trial court properly reviewed its mandate within the context of the entire opinion and proceeded properly with a jury trial in order to secure a factual finding by the jury as to whether the advice and conduct were in accordance with the pacemaker's manual. The trial court based the relevant jury charge and the jury interrogatory on the factual issue that it had determined could not be resolved as a matter of law. Indeed, the trial court carefully tracked the language used in the first appeal.  The relevant interrogatory asked the jury to determine whether “the [p]laintiff [has] proven by a fair preponderance of the evidence that [rep], by his oral communications to [doctor] that turning down the pacemaker was an option, accompanied by his physical adjustment of the pacemaker to forty paces per minute, actually contradicted the technical manual thereby vitiating and nullifying the manual's warnings....” 

The court disagreed with the plaintiff that the trial court imposed a heightened burden of proof because, first, the trial court directly cited what the supreme court had determined to be the remaining triable factual issue, and, second, the words “contradict” (used by the trial court)and “inconsistent”  (used by the supreme court) are interchangeable.  In this context, the words are synonymous, said the court.  No error in the instruction, so no reversal of the jury verdict.

 

Failure to Warn Claim Survives- But Why?

Sometimes, manufacturers have to wonder, what good does a warning do if the courts won't require people to read and heed the warning given?

Harley Davidson is an iconic American product manufacturer. In 1903, William S. Harley and Arthur Davidson made available to the public the first production Harley-Davidson® motorcycle. The bike was built to be a racer, with a 3-1/8 inch bore and 3-1/2 inch stroke. The factory in which they worked was a 10 x 15-foot wooden shed with the words "Harley-Davidson Motor Company" crudely scrawled on the door.

William and Arthur would likely be scratching their heads over a recent ruling denying the company's summary judgment motion on a failure-to-warn claim in a suit filed after a motorcycle crash. Steven Morris v. Harley-Davidson Motor Co., et al., No. 3:09-cv-74 (M.D. Ga.).

Plaintiff alleged that the rear tire of his motorcycle failed, resulting in a crash that killed plaintiff’s wife and left plaintiff seriously injured. Plaintiff contended that the defendants (including the tire company) failed to provide an adequate warning regarding the dangers of overloading the motorcycle. With a full tank of gas weighing 31 pounds, the plaintiff's Ultra Classic’s Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) allowed for an additional 420 pounds of weight capacity for the rider, any passenger, cargo, and accessories. Plaintiff, who weighed 250 pounds, was with his wife, who weighed 204 pounds, riding as a rear passenger. Plaintiff was also pulling a trailer.

When plaintiff purchased the Ultra Classic, he was provided with an owner’s manual, which contained warnings and instructions regarding the Ultra Classic. Specifically, the Owner’s Manual warned against exceeding the GVWR; that exceeding these weight ratings can affect stability and handling, which could result in death or serious injury; explaining that GVWR is the sum of the weight of the motorcycle, accessories, and the maximum weight of the rider, passenger and cargo that can be safely carried.  It tells the owner that the GVWR is shown on the information plate located on the frame steering head.

The court found it significant that the weight of the trailer was not listed in the components of the GVWR, but that was because the Owner’s Manual also warned against pulling a trailer, ever: “Do not pull a trailer with a motorcycle. Pulling a trailer can cause tire overload, reduced braking efficiency and adversely affect stability and handling, which could result in death or serious injury.”  That is exactly what happened, according to plaintiff!

Plaintiff admitted he never read the Owner’s Manual. But in addition to the warnings in the Owner’s Manual, there were also warnings on the Ultra Classic. One warning was located inside the storage compartment on the back end of the Ultra Classic, over the rear wheel, and behind the passenger’s seat, and the Ultra Classic also contained an information plate on the steering head, which listed the Ultra Classic’s GVWR, recommended tire pressures, and other information.  Plaintiff testified that he did not see these warnings either.

Harley-Davidson contended that plaintiff’s failure to warn claim failed as a matter of law because he did not read the warnings in the Owner’s Manual or the warnings on the Ultra Classic.  The court construed  the claim as not relating to the substance of the warning, but the procedure, the method by which the information was communicated.  The court concluded that plaintiff contended that he never read the warnings because Harley-Davidson failed to communicate them adequately. Failure to read a warning does not bar recovery when the plaintiff is challenging the adequacy of the efforts of the manufacturer or seller to communicate the dangers of the product to the buyer or user, found the court.

Failure to communicate an adequate warning involves such procedural questions as location and presentation of the warning. The court found that it was a jury question whether or not the manufacturer was negligent in failing to place a warning in such position, color and size print or to use symbols that would adequately convey the information. Thus, based on the present record, said the court, a reasonable fact-finder could conclude that Harley-Davidson failed to place useful load information regarding the Ultra Classic where a user would likely see it.

But, even accepting the substance/procedure distinction, the only evidence the court focused on concerning the alleged inadequacy of the warnings was plaintiff's self-serving testimony. A plaintiff should not be able to create an issue of fact on the procedural aspects of the warning simply by saying, "I didn't see it, so it must have been inadequate." Where was the genuine issue of fact?  Where was the proof that the vehicle's Owner's Manual is not the right place to put a warning about safe operation of the vehicle.    Bottom line - there can be no genuine issue of fact when an admittedly adequate warning is placed in the Owner's Manual and the owner never opens the manual. Where is the genuine dispute about warnings right on the motorcycle itself? Where was the proof of where else the manufacturer was supposed to put a warning?

 

Brand Name Drug Maker Not Liable To Plaintiff Who Used Generics

A federal trial court in Texas has held that a plaintiff who admitted using only generic products cannot maintain failure to warn claims against brand-name drug manufacturers. Finnicum v. Wyeth Inc.,  2010 WL 1718204 (E.D. Tex., 4/28/10). 

Finnicum alleged that her doctor prescribed metoclopramide to treat her heartburn sometime in 2003 and that she regularly ingested a generic form of the drug until at least 2007. Finnicum stipulated, however, that she never ingested any form of metoclopramide manufactured or distributed by defendants Wyeth or Schwarz. In mid-2007, Finnicum alleged she began exhibiting symptoms of tardive dyskinesia, a neurological disorder characterized by involuntary movements, especially of the lower face. Finnicum contended that her long-term ingestion of metoclopramide caused her to develop the disease.

She brought suit, asserting causes of action against Wyeth and Schwarz for negligence, strict products liability, breach of warranty, fraud, and violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act.

Although plaintiff never ingested any form of metoclopramide that defendants manufactured or distributed, she alleged that manufacturers of generic metoclopramide are required by federal law to use brand name warnings when selling their products. Finnicum further contended that physicians rely on brand-name warnings when prescribing generic drugs. Finnicum maintained that defendants, as manufacturers of the brand name drug (Reglan), failed to provide adequate warnings of the long-term effects of metoclopramide use. And that impacted the warnings she did get.

The court granted summary judgment to the defendants, joining the majority of courts that have considered this question. Texas law applied. The Texas Supreme Court has stated that a manufacturer generally does not have a duty to warn or instruct about another manufacturer's products, even though a third party might use those products in connection with the manufacturer's own products. Thus, Texas law does not permit a plaintiff who ingested another manufacturer's drug to maintain a failure-to-warn claim against a brand-name manufacturer.  This result is in accord with, for example, the Eighth Circuit in Mensing v. Wyeth, Inc., 588 F.3d 603 (8th Cir.2009); see also Foster v. American Home Prods. Corp., 29 F.3d 165 (4th Cir. 1994).

The court expressly rejected the California decision, Conte v. Wyeth, Inc., 85 Cal.Rptr.3d 299 (Cal.Ct.App.2008). In Conte, the court extended a brand name drug manufacturer's duty of care regarding product information to patients who were injured by generic brands. This ruling would impose a duty that would stretch the concept of foreseeability too far.

CAFA Mass Tort Removal in Drug Case

A federal court in Illinois recently denied remand of approximately 100 cases involving Trasylol, an anti-bleeding drug, citing the Class Action Fairness Act. Gilmore v. Bayer Corp., 2009 WL 4789406(N.D. Ill., 12/10/09). (Federal Trasylol litigation was consolidated in 2008 in the Southern District of Florida. In re Trasylol Prods. Liab. Litig., No. 08-MD-1928 (S.D. Fla.). The plaintiffs typically assert that the product causes heart and kidney complications, and that the defendants allegedly failed to warn of the risks.)

The suit was originally filed in state court. The defendants removed the case, but Judge G. Patrick Murphy remanded it for lack of federal jurisdiction. Additional plaintiffs were added in October, followed by a second removal motion. The defendants asserted diversity of citizenship under CAFA. The plaintiffs again sought remand.

The Southern District of Illinois ruled that the removing defendants asserted correctly that this case was a removable “mass action” within the meaning of CAFA. Among the actions covered by CAFA is a “mass action,” defined by the statute as “any civil action ... in which monetary relief claims of 100 or more persons are proposed to be tried jointly on the ground that the plaintiffs' claims involve common questions of law or fact,” and in which there is minimal diversity of citizenship (at least one plaintiff is not a citizen of the same state as at least one defendant) and the plaintiffs each seek a recovery exceeding $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. 28 U.S .C. § 1332(d)(11)(B)(i).

The court concluded that an independent review “discloses plainly that the removal of this case is proper under the CAFA.”  The operative complaint asserted claims on behalf of one hundred persons, the minimum number of plaintiffs required for the exercise of jurisdiction pursuant to CAFA's “mass action” provisions.  Further, this case obviously presented questions of law and fact common to the claims of all one hundred plaintiffs, said the court. Common questions of fact and law included, for example, what information Bayer, Bayer LLC, and Bayer Healthcare possessed concerning the alleged harmful effects of Trasylol, what information they elected to disclose to physicians and patients about those harmful effects, and what information they were required by law to disclose about those effects, according to the court.

With respect to the requirement of minimal diversity of citizenship, this jurisdictional prerequisite was satisfied in this case as plaintiff Thomas Gilmore is a citizen of Washington and Bayer is incorporated under Indiana law and has its principal place of business in Pennsylvania.

Finally, with respect to the jurisdictional amount in controversy under the CAFA's “mass action” provisions, the Court noted that in other cases involving allegations of personal injuries allegedly caused by the drug similar to the allegations contained in the operative complaint in this case that the plaintiffs' claims individually exceeded $75,000.

Our readers know that Congress enacted CAFA to allow more interstate class actions to be heard in federal court, and to address class action abuse.  "Mass actions" were recognized as class actions in disguise, and included in CAFA the provision to prevent the statute's objectives from being undermined by these "close substitutes that escape the statute's application." The courts increasingly offer a common sense reading of CAFA  that thwarts any attempt by plaintiffs' counsel to avoid federal court through the class-action substitute.

State Supreme Court Clarifies Subsequent Remedial Measure Doctrine

The Iowa Supreme Court last week issued an interesting decision clarifying the subsequent remedial measure doctrine in that jurisdiction, and offering some good general notions. Scott v. Dutton-Lainson Co., 2009 WL 3415937 (Iowa 10/23/09).

A little background.  Readers of MassTort Defense know that despite the nostalgic effort of some courts to try to maintain a bright line between strict liability and negligence claims, it is pure semantics to try to confine certain product defect claims to a "strict" regime.  Specifically, failure to warn claims and design defect claims (as opposed to manufacturing defect claims) have been largely recognized as sounding, at least in part, in negligence.  In the Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability, the standards for design defect and failure-to-warn claims require consideration of reasonableness and therefore incorporate negligence principles.

Beyond the articulation of the causes of action, the classification of the claims has other potential impact in a products liability claim, such as in this case. Plaintiff worked for a boat dealership and suffered an injured foot when the jack on a boat trailer collapsed.  Plaintiff offered a design defect theory, that the jack's pin should have been longer, allowing users to better see whether the pin was engaged. (A competitor allegedly made a longer pin.)  Below, plaintiff sought to introduce three bits of testimony regarding defendant's alleged subsequent changes to the pin tooling, which lengthened it and thus allowed it to reach further into the pin hole.  The first was deposition testimony from a company officer concerning changing the tooling.  Second was a deposition of a witness who reportedly heard a company official say the pin was lengthened as a result of plaintiff's accident. The third was proposed testimony that the redesign allowed the pin to move further into the hole.

As in some states, Iowa Rule of Evidence 5.407 excludes evidence of subsequent remedial measures to prove negligence or culpable conduct, but not in strict liability claims.  Plaintiff, of course, argued that the proposed testimony was for his strict liability claims.  The trial court excluded the evidence at trial, which resulted in a defense verdict.

The state supreme court held that design defect and failure-to-warn claims sound in negligence, rather than strict liability.  Thus, the lower court had been correct to exclude evidence of the subsequent measures at the trial. Evidence of subsequent remedial measures, which a party seeks to introduce in an action based on a design defect claim, a failure to warn claim, or a breach of warranty claim brought under either theory, is not categorically exempt from exclusion under rule 5.407, because these claims are not strict liability claims. Instead, trial courts must analyze the reason a party seeks to admit such evidence. According to rule 5.407, evidence of subsequent remedial measures is not admissible to show negligence or culpable conduct. Such evidence is admissible to show “ownership, control, or feasibility of precautionary measures, if controverted, or impeachment.” Iowa R. Evid. 5.407.

The court found that the exceptions in the rule adequately accommodate a plaintiff's burden to prove a reasonable alternative design.  A plaintiff has the opportunity to introduce evidence of subsequent remedial measures if the defendant disputes the feasibility of a suggested alternative design.

The court found that important policy reasons, including the need to avoid deterring individuals from making improvements or repairs after an accident, supported the exclusion. Plaintiffs, and misguided academics, often assert that manufacturers will choose to make improvements to a product even if those improvements are admissible because the producer would otherwise risk litigation and negative publicity.  But there is a substantial body of criticism of that notion, which overstates the relevance of subsequent remedial measures, appears to have an over-focus on mass product producers (when the rule applies to everyone), and invites confusion of the jury, both by diverting its attention from whether the product was defective at the relevant time to what was done later, and by facilitating, in the minds of jurors, an inappropriate equation between subsequent design modification and an admission of a prior defective design.  This plaintiff's argument premises its conclusions concerning hypothetical manufacturer conduct upon the assumption that the product at issue is in fact defective, overlooking the situation where the product is not defective but could have been, and may be later, improved.