Posts tagged "Merck"

Rafferty v. Merck & Co., Inc., et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-041-18)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.  If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030;   SJC-12347   BRIAN RAFFERTY  vs.  MERCK & CO., INC., & another.[1]       Middlesex.     November 6, 2017. – March 16, 2018.   Present:  Gants, C.J., Gaziano, Budd, & Cypher, JJ.     Negligence, Pharmaceutical manufacturer, Adequacy of warning, Duty to warn, Standard of care.  Actionable tort.  Public Policy.  Consumer Protection Act, Unfair or deceptive act, Trade or commerce.  Practice, Civil, Motion to dismiss.       Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on October 10, 2013.   A motion to dismiss was heard by Kenneth J. Fishman, J., and entry of separate and final judgment was ordered by him.   The Supreme Judicial Court on its own initiative transferred the case from the Appeals Court.     Emily E. Smith-Lee for the plaintiff. Richard L. Neumeier (Aaron Rice, of Mississippi, & David L. Johnson, of Tennessee, also present) for Merck & Co., Inc. The following submitted briefs for amici curiae: Michael X. Imbroscio & Gregory L. Halperin, of the District of Columbia, & Paul W. Schmidt for Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America & others. Mark C. Fleming & Tyler L. Sparrow for International Association of Defense Counsel. Hugh F. Young, Jr., of Virginia, & David R. Greiger & Richard G. Baldwin for Product Liability Advisory Council, Inc. Kannon K. Shanmugam, Allison Jones Rushing, & Connor S. Sullivan, of the District of Columbia, & Jennifer G. Wicht for Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America. Lawrence G. Cetrulo, Kyle E. Bjornlund, Elizabeth S. Dillon, & Brian D. Fishman for Massachusetts Defense Lawyers Association.     GANTS, C.J.  Under Federal law, a manufacturer of a generic drug must provide its users with a warning label that is identical to the label of the brand-name counterpart.  See PLIVA, Inc. v. Mensing, 564 U.S. 604, 613 (2011) (PLIVA).  The issue on appeal is whether a plaintiff who alleges that he was injured from his use of a generic drug, because of a failure to warn of the drug’s side effects, may bring a common-law general negligence claim and a statutory claim under G. L. c. 93A against the brand-name drug manufacturer that created the warning label.  Applying our general principles of tort law and as a matter of public policy, we conclude that the plaintiff may not bring a negligence claim against the brand-name manufacturer for a failure to warn.  We […]


Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - March 17, 2018 at 12:44 am

Categories: News   Tags: , , , , ,