Skip to main content

Generic drug safety argued at high court

By Bill Mears, CNN Supreme Court Producer
updated 9:05 AM EDT, Wed March 20, 2013
Federal law requires generic drug makers to provide identical ingredients, warnings, and labels as brand-name products.
Federal law requires generic drug makers to provide identical ingredients, warnings, and labels as brand-name products.
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
  • Case involves woman who had a serious reaction to a generic drug
  • Supreme Court reveals little about how it might rule in the case
  • Generic drugs account for an estimated 80 percent of all prescriptions
  • Drug company says it cannot comply with both federal and state demands

Washington (CNN) -- Karen Bartlett walked gingerly down the marble steps of the Supreme Court on Tuesday, guided on the arms of her lawyer. She is legally blind, the result of a serious reaction to a generic drug.

Her medical condition was debated before the justices, testing whether federal law prevents her multi-million-dollar "design-defect" judgment against the pharmaceutical company from standing up in state court.

A cautious bench revealed little about how it will rule in this closely watched case.

Hollingsworth v. Perry (2013): The Supreme Court dismissed an appeal over California's Proposition 8 on jurisdictional grounds. The voter-approved ballot measure barring same-sex marriage was not defended by state officials, but rather a private party. This ruling cleared the way for same-sex marriage in California to resume, but left open-ended the legal language of 35 other states barring same-sex marriage. Take a look at other important cases decided by the high court. Hollingsworth v. Perry (2013): The Supreme Court dismissed an appeal over California's Proposition 8 on jurisdictional grounds. The voter-approved ballot measure barring same-sex marriage was not defended by state officials, but rather a private party. This ruling cleared the way for same-sex marriage in California to resume, but left open-ended the legal language of 35 other states barring same-sex marriage. Take a look at other important cases decided by the high court.
Supreme Court cases that changed America
HIDE CAPTION
<<
<
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
>
>>
Photos: Supreme Court cases that changed America Photos: Supreme Court cases that changed America
The justices of the U.S. Supreme Court sit for their official photograph on October 8, 2010, at the Supreme Court. Front row, from left: Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Anthony M. Kennedy and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Back row, from left: Sonia Sotomayor, Stephen Breyer, Samuel Alito Jr. and Elena Kagan. The justices of the U.S. Supreme Court sit for their official photograph on October 8, 2010, at the Supreme Court. Front row, from left: Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Anthony M. Kennedy and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Back row, from left: Sonia Sotomayor, Stephen Breyer, Samuel Alito Jr. and Elena Kagan.
Today's Supreme Court
HIDE CAPTION
<<
<
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
>
>>
Photos: Today\'s Supreme Court Photos: Today's Supreme Court

Generic drugs account for an estimated 80 percent of all prescriptions and patient-rights advocates say companies should be held accountable for unsafe, poorly made products regardless of whether they are brand name or generic.

That number is expected to rise in coming years with patent protection due to expire on several popular and lucrative consumer drugs, including Lipitor and Viagra.

From the archives: Big-name drugs go generic

The blockbuster health care reform bill championed by President Barack Obama would also encourage greater use of generics. About a third of generic drugs have no brand name competitors.

But Mutual Pharmaceutical counters it received Food and Drug Administration approval and that it cannot comply with both federal and state standards of care when it comes to drug safety and marketing.

The state jury "didn't say that 'yes, you can market this drug, it benefits 99.9 percent of the people, but there is that 0.1 percent, and you're going to have to compensate that person," said Chief Justice John Roberts. "They said the risks outweigh the benefits, period. So you should not market this at all. And that does seem inconsistent with the federal regime."

Concerns about generic painkillers increase

But Justice Elena Kagan suggested the company could be held responsible.

"We are not really dealing with generics; we are also dealing brand-name drugs," she said. "As to design [claims], don't the brand-name and the generics go hand in hand?"

Federal law requires generic drug makers to provide identical ingredients, warnings, and labels as brand-name products.

Bartlett suffers from Stevens-Johnson Syndrome, a lifelong debilitating disease that requires constant application of drops in her damaged eyes.

After complaining of shoulder pain in 2004, the New Hampshire woman was given a generic form of Sulindac, a non-steroid anti-inflammatory.

A rare hypersensitivity side-effect soon developed, causing her outer skin to burn and leaving open wounds on more than 60 percent of her body.

From the archives: Is your medication safe?

She was placed in a medically-induced coma for 100 days and suffered lung and esophageal damage.

Nine years and 12 surgeries later, Bartlett looked weak and needed help standing on the high court plaza after arguments.

A state court jury awarded her more than $21 million in compensatory damages, finding the generic was "unreasonably dangerous." Mutual eventually took its case to the high court.

This appeal is the latest the Supreme Court justices have wrestled with in recent years over liability from defective drugs. Most have turned on the tricky legal line between state and federal discretion.

Generic drug makers are trying to dismiss these kinds of design-defect lawsuits. They cite a 1984 congressional law pre-empting state "failure-to-warn" claims.

Drug companies have long asserted various doctrines of pre-emption, saying they are protected from most product-liability claims if they have met federal safety approval standards.

They argue that federal regulatory judgments trump state consumer safety laws, which are often tougher than Washington's standards.

FDA reversal: Keep taking recalled cholesterol drug

But the high court had given a big victory to patients and consumer rights groups in 2009 when it ruled in favor of plaintiff who sued Wyeth -- now owned by Pfizer -- after losing an arm to gangrene from a common, brand-name anti-nausea prescription medication. She had won a $7 million judgment from a Vermont jury for her claims.

Then last year, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that generic drug companies do not share the same level of responsibility as makers of brand-name equivalents, to update their warning labels when significant new risks emerge.

The conservative majority noted that Congress, not the courts, could change the law if they wanted.

Bartlett's case goes beyond the so-called "failure to warn" standard and applies to the safety of the drug itself.

A federal appeals court in Boston ruled for Bartlett, calling her situation "disastrous." It concluded Mutual could have simply taken the drug off the market following scattered reports of dangerous side-effects.

The Obama administration backed the drug company, concerned that if state lawsuits are not pre-empted by federal law, that would reduce the incentive for generic drug makers to provide the most current safety information to the FDA, and affect patient care.

Don't judge the generic pill by its color

That sentient was echoed by lawyers representing the Philadelphia-based company.

"This is a situation where we had a $21-million-dollar verdict with respect to a drug that hundreds of thousands of people were taking at the time, and while it's true that about one out of a million had a terrible, terrible adverse reaction, hundreds of thousands are benefiting from the drug," Jay Lefkowitz told CNN after the argument.

"The drug was only selling about $6-7 million a year in gross sales. If you have more verdicts like this, they are going to take drugs off the market," he said.

The company also says it should be protected from such lawsuits because by law they are not allowed to change the product or its label.

But David Frederick, Bartlett's attorney, slammed the Obama administration's position that its regulatory judgment supersedes state courts "second-guessing" its expert, science-based authority.

"The federal government took a sweeping and unprecedented position today where it had taken no regulatory action and nonetheless asserted because it had information in its files, that that displaced state law," said Frederick. "I've been arguing cases in this court for a long time. I've never heard such a broad assertion of federal power."

A second separate case over generic drugs will be argued next week at the Supreme Court, dealing with so-called "reverse payment" agreements between competing generic and brand-name manufacturers.

As for Bartlett, she attended the morning arguments, but was reluctant to predict an outcome.

"I want generic drug makers to be held accountable for the harm they did to me and others," she told CNN. "The same as brand-name drugs."

A ruling is due by late spring.

The case is Mutual Pharmaceutical Co. v. Bartlett (12-142).

ADVERTISEMENT
Part of complete coverage on
updated 4:12 PM EDT, Wed April 23, 2014
Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal signed a wide-ranging gun bill into law Wednesday that has critics howling and proponents applauding.
updated 6:52 AM EDT, Thu June 13, 2013
Six months after a gunman burst into a Newtown, Connecticut, elementary school and slaughtered 20 children and killed six others, promises of stricter national gun control laws remain largely unfulfilled.
updated 7:20 AM EDT, Sat June 8, 2013
The sign at the door of the Colt factory displays a gun with a slash through it: "No loaded or unauthorized firearms beyond this point." Understandable for workers at a plant, but also a bit ironic, considering one of the largest arsenals in America lies just beyond.
updated 7:18 AM EDT, Sat June 8, 2013
Much attention has been paid to the defeat in Congress of proposals to ban assault weapons and expand background checks for firearm purchases.
updated 9:04 AM EDT, Sat June 29, 2013
Morgan Spurlock's "Inside Man" gives CNN viewers an inside and in-depth look at the issue of firearms -- as viewed from behind the counter of a gun store. Here are five things to know about the debate.
updated 11:02 AM EDT, Thu April 18, 2013
The Senate defeated a compromise plan to expand background checks on firearms sales as well as a proposal to ban some semi-automatic weapons modeled after military assault weapons.
updated 8:03 PM EDT, Thu April 11, 2013
As Congress grapples with major gun control legislation proposals, brothers and sisters, mothers, fathers and children write about the people they loved and lost to gun violence and how it changed their lives.
updated 8:45 AM EDT, Thu April 11, 2013
Hear from both sides of the gun debate as opinions clash.
updated 1:44 PM EDT, Wed May 1, 2013
It was a bit awkward the first time Kate Daggett asked the question.
updated 9:41 AM EDT, Wed April 10, 2013
Many Americans and lawmakers are in favor of continuing or expanding background checks on gun purchases, but few understand how the checks work.
updated 3:35 PM EDT, Thu April 4, 2013
Still stinging from the shooting deaths at Sandy Hook, Connecticut lawmakers approved what advocacy groups call the strongest and most comprehensive gun legislation in the nation.
updated 9:53 AM EDT, Fri March 29, 2013
It took fewer than five minutes for Adam Lanza to squeeze off 154 rounds, upending life in Newtown, Connecticut, and triggering a renewed national debate over gun control.
Who should get them? Join the gun control debate and share your perspective on CNN iReport.
updated 11:24 AM EDT, Tue April 2, 2013
Before having children, she was a firm believer that guns were dangerous. Now this mother of three has a different perspective.
updated 6:54 PM EDT, Tue March 19, 2013
In the biggest fight over firearms since December's massacre at a Connecticut elementary school, gun-control advocates are poised to notch a victory in an unlikely place.
A former drug addict turned anti-violence crusader, and a man who lost his father in a temple shooting. These are just two of many in the conversation.
updated 1:22 PM EST, Fri February 1, 2013
At a town hall that brought all sides of the gun debate together, was there a consensus? Sort of.
updated 10:51 AM EST, Tue February 5, 2013
The federal background check system for gun buyers didn't stop a mentally ill man from buying a gun, which he used to kill his mother.
updated 7:37 PM EST, Thu January 31, 2013
In disputes over the future of gun laws, people espousing different positions often literally don't understand each other.
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT