United States: The Lows − Mourning The Worst Prescription Drug/Medical Device Decisions Of 2017

Last Updated: December 27 2017
Article by James Beck

The second most successful college basketball coach of all time (in terms of NCAA Division 1 national championships) has said "All of life is peaks and valleys. Don't let the peaks get too high and the valleys too low." We're remembering that today because, frankly, dealing with all the lows at once can get depressing. That, however, is the purpose of today's post. We're looking at the bottom ten worst prescription medical product liability litigation decisions of 2017.

All these lumps of coal in our defense-oriented stockings is enough to give us all a case of seasonal depression. These cases, while hardly candidates for a Hallelujah Chorus, do remind us of a different sort of Hallelujah – the kind we want over with as soon as possible. So let's get on with it already. If you were on the receiving end any of these cases atrocities, we feel your pain. We've been there (see 2013 -2), and we know what you went through. That said, we'll feel better next week, when we welcome the New Year with the our best decisions, after having taken this week's purgative.

So let's start purging:

  1. In re Fosamax (Alendronate Sodium) Products Liability Litigation, 852 F.3d 268 (3d Cir. 2017). It's hard to screw up the our most important defense – preemption − law in more different ways in one case than Fosamax did. The MDL court had found preemption because the FDA had actually considered the risk in question, several times, after obtaining classwide information, leading to a detailed section on that risk in 2011. Plaintiffs, as always demanded more, a causal warning that the FDA had rejected. They lost, under Levine's ( 2009-1) "clear evidence preemption standard, back in 2014, and scores of claims were dismissed. Typical of the muddle that MDLs make of litigation these days, an appeal took three years to decide. Definitely not worth the wait. To avoid preemption on facts where the FDA had actually rejected the warning the plaintiff wanted, the Third Circuit did two things. First, ignoring prior Supreme Court precedent, the Third Circuit created an unprecedented heightened evidentiary standard for implied preemption, converting Levine's requirement of "clear evidence" into a requirement for "clear and convincing" evidence. In eight years since Levine, no court had gone there (and no court has since). Second, to make things even worse, after putting a thumb on the evidentiary scale, the court then declared preemption – the determination that the FDA "would have" rejected a label change – was a question of fact, not law. That's right, juries get to speculate, after hearing both side's warring FDA "experts" (current FDA employees can't be called as witnesses without the Agency's consent) about what the FDA might have done. That ruling goes beyond unprecedented, since it flies in the face of more supposedly binding Third Circuit precedent than we have fingers. Nor could anything be more destructive of FDA authority than to let juries speculate about what the agency might have done with hypothetical warnings, and reach differing conclusions about the same drug in different cases. Under Fosamax, summary judgment on preemption is possible only when "no reasonable juror could conclude that it is anything less than highly probable that the FDA would have rejected Plaintiff's proposed . . . warning." In other words, never – since the FDA had, in fact, rejected it. We decried this "lawless" result here. In addition, we cheered on the defendant's certiorari petition and supporting amicus briefs, while pointing out other courts that rejected the Third Circuit's misguided reasoning. And there is a glimmer of hope. The Supreme Court has asked for the Solicitor General's views on the case, which tells us that this appeal has a pretty decent chance of being granted.
  2. Eghnayem v. Boston Scientific Corp., 873 F.3d 1304 (11th Cir. 2017). Eghnayem is the year's outstanding example of MDL abuse. Leery of MDL "bellwether" cases turning into Stalinist show trials, featuring multi-plaintiff consolidation and punitive damages, the defendant declined to waive its Lexecon rights limiting MDL trials. Didn't work. Shades of Stalin chasing Trotsky to Mexico: the MDL judge chased the defendant back to Florida, obtained a temporary commission and tried the case there – with four plaintiffs, punitive damages claims, and all of the adverse evidentiary rulings that have come to characterize that MDL. All four plaintiffs won nearly identical (two exactly $6,722,222) verdicts of over $6 million apiece. We have pointed out elsewhere at length how multi-plaintiff consolidations are inherently prejudicial to defendants, hence their use in MDLs as a means of pressuring defendants to pay big bucks to settle. In Eghnayem, the Eleventh Circuit let it stand – despite the almost identical verdicts that should be a red flag demonstrating that the jury abandoned any effort to consider the cases separately. "Confusing or not," it was not an abuse of discretion to consolidate product liability cases (including warning claims, which change over time) involving similar injuries from similar products. Contrary to almost every other case, even "identical damage awards" "are not sufficient evidence of juror confusion." Nor did admission of otherwise inadmissible warning (state of the art) and damages evidence preclude consolidation. It's a terrible appellate precedent, we think the first allowing product liability consolidation outside of asbestos. Compared to that, the court's affirmance of exclusion of §510k clearance evidence – another unfortunate hallmark of this litigation, although virtually unheard-of previously – is secondary. We excoriated Eghnayem here, and recommended changes to the MDL statute to prevent such abuses here.
  3. Barron v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., 529 S.W.3d 795 (Mo. 2017). The intermediate appellate decision in this case alone was enough to make #3 on our bottom ten list last year. But for a couple of colossal federal appellate screw ups, affirmance of the $38 million ($23 million in punitives) verdict by the Missouri Supreme Court would have moved up a notch or two. The big problem was venue and joinder – the trick of Missouri forum shopping that allowed a Minnesota plaintiff to have her case tried in St. Louis. The Missouri Supreme Court dodged the issue holding that any error "by either failing to transfer venue or failing to sever the claims" was harmless because no "prejudice" from trial in St. Louis was shown. How one would ever show prejudice, short of a lynch mob at the door, is unclear. Rulings like this are what keep plaintiffs coming back to certain jurisdictions for more. On warnings, the court held that because the defendant did not trash its own product as being riskier than other similar products, the warning wasn't "accurate." As to punitive damages, the court held that a "black box warning is not relevant" because all contrary evidence is to be "disregarded" in evaluating the verdict. Incredible – millions in punitives for a risk with a boxed warning. We blasted Barron here as a poster child for why Missouri needs tort reform to put an end to blatant forum shopping. That didn't happen, but something else did (wait till next week) that has made a big differenct.
  4. Cottrell v. Alcon Laboratories, 874 F.3d 154 (3d Cir. 2017). Two Third Circuit cases are in the bottom five this year, and sure enough, the composition of the panels, here and in Fosamax, overlapped substantially. The question in Cottrell was standing, specifically whether an otherwise uninjured consumer of a product could sue because the product wasn't made and priced in a way that the consumer thought would be better or cheaper. The same theory had been called "absurd" in a prior Third Circuit (unfortunately nonprecedential) opinion, but this panel never found a novel tort theory it couldn't adopt. Creating a circuit split, Cottrell allowed a would-be class action (all these ridiculous cases start as class actions) alleged "injury in fact" because the claims arose from consumer protection statutes. That the claim made no practical or economic sense, because consumers can't force manufacturers to make different products, was irrelevant because when considering standing the merits didn't matter. TwIqbal, what TwIqbal? Calling the defendant's actions "unfair" was enough. When we started writing this blog, the Third Circuit had strong standing requirements that barred no-injury class actions; after Cottrell, the court has fallen to the bottom. At least in this case, unlike Fosamax, there was a dissent. We castigated Cottrell here.
  5. Taylor v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., 389 P.3d 517 (Wash. 2017). The learned intermediary rule means that the duty of the manufacturer is to provide an adequate warning to the plaintiff's treating physicians, right? Not if you're the Washington Supreme Court. In an unprecedented ruling, Taylor opens up an entirely new front in prescription medical product litigation by ruling that, despite the rule, there exists a separate duty to provide warnings to a hospital, where the product actually was sold to the hospital, which many drugs and devices are. This ruling potentially opens up hospitals to claims that they failed to stop doctors from using/prescribing products, and creates a second chain of warning causation that now must be negated. On top of that, Taylor deviated from what had been consistent Washington precedent applying comment k to all prescription drugs and medical devices (Bexis filed an unsuccessful amicus brief on this issue), and held that strict liability can apply anytime a plaintiff asserts that warnings were inadequate. We trashed Taylor here.
  6. In re Accutane Litigation, 165 A.3d 832 (N.J. App. Div. 2017). At 15 years, Accutane litigation may well be the second longest running mass tort (after asbestos, of course) in New Jersey. For a long time that was due a certain one-woman wrecking crew in Atlantic County. She was kicked upstairs shortly after the defendant in Accutane sought recusal, and the mass tort has outlived her. However her ghost haunts Accutane still, as Accutane (particularly footnotes 5 and 9) demonstrates. New Jersey's approach to expert evidence has sometimes been called "relaxed." However, Accutane goes from relaxed to supine. Plaintiffs' experts were allowed to avoid and discount multiple epidemiologic studies finding no statistically increased risk at all. Far from the law lagging science, as is the case (at least rhetorically) with Daubert in the federal courts, Accutane declared that "legal decision making in toxic tort and similar cases may vary from scientific decision making." It disregarded the usual hierarchy of scientific evidence, putting animal studies and single-patient case reports on the same level as statistically significant epidemiology. Where did "general acceptance" go? Everywhere else but New Jersey, Accutane cases alleging intestinal issues have been dismissed as a matter of law for lack of scientific basis. Here, some two thousand cases have been resuscitated. We abhorred the Accutane result here, and praised the defense appellate arguments here. Now, as with Fosamax there is hope. Earlier this month the New Jersey Supreme Court granted the defendant's appeal and will decide the scientific issues in Accutane for itself.
  7. Christiansen v. Wright Medical Technology, Inc., 851 F.3d 1203 (11th Cir. 2017). Christiansen is another example of the problems with bellwether trials in MDL litigation, illustrating how trial and appellate courts will bend over backwards to obtain and affirm plaintiff verdicts. In Christiansen the jury initially returned a defense verdict. That was not the result the MDL judge wanted, so he told the jurors that perhaps they did not "fully understand" the case and instructed them to try again, because a no defect finding was supposedly "inconsistent" with a finding of misrepresentation. Duly admonished, the jury changed its mind and returned a verdict for the plaintiff. Amazingly, the Eleventh Circuit let that second verdict stand. In and of itself, that would be bad, but probably too much of a one-off situation to warrant the bottom ten. However, the Eleventh Circuit went on to disregard the across-the-board application of comment k decreed by the relevant state's (Utah) highest court. Comment k only applies to drugs, not medical devices (or at least 510k medical devices) because only drugs are "approved." No Utah – indeed no court anywhere – has ever distinguished between prescription drugs and prescription medical devices in this fashion. Utah law had never even required proof of FDA approval of anything for comment k to apply. This kind of liability-enhancing, Erie-ignoring ruling on state law is, we believe, a consequence of the bellwether system, which causes disproportionate investment of time and effort in particular trials, which in turn pressures appellate courts to find some way to affirm, so that investment is not wasted. We chastised Christiansen here.
  8. Mink v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 860 F.3d 1319 (11th Cir. 2017). A terrible trifecta for the Eleventh Circuit. Shades of Bush v. Gore – this time Mink thinks that it knows more about Florida law than the Florida state courts do. As a general proposition, the Florida Supreme Court has required, for over two decades, that before any use of negligence per se, such use must be consistent with legislative intent. That means, as a matter of state law, FDCA-based negligence per se claims fail, because the FDCA famously included §337(a), which expressly provides for exclusive government enforcement. This legislative intent requirement further means that "parallel claims" of FDCA violations do not exist in Florida, and so an unbroken string of state and federal decisions had held. Until Mink. The court's reasoning was bluntly result oriented. Florida law could not be that way, Mink declared, because otherwise plaintiffs suing over allegedly defective PMA medical devices would be out of court. That's true, but as the Supreme Court noted in Riegel, that is precisely what preemption does. For taking a blunt instrument to a long-standing requirement of state law for no reason other than to preserve an exception to preemption that this particular state has chosen not to recognize, Mink belongs in this list. We skinned Mink here.
  9. Wendell v. GlaxoSmithKline, LLC, 858 F.3d 1227 (9th Cir. 2017). In an ugly decision, the Ninth Circuit reversed a Daubert exclusion in Wendell. Given the appellate abuse of discretion standard applicable to Daubert decisions, that amounts to a decree that this type of expert testimony must be admitted. What type of opinion was it? It was litigation-driven, without a scrap of independent research. It was unsupported by epidemiology, or even animal studies. Even the "science" cited by the excluded experts did not address the drug combination plaintiff had used. Nor had the experts excluded, as a possible cause, the underlying condition that the drug was used to treat. Instead of science, Wendell was blinded by the supposed "highly qualified" credentials of the experts. Qualification and methodology are supposed to be separate inquiries under Daubert. Linus Pauling, for example, won two Nobel prizes, but as to cancer cures he was a quack. Ditto William Shockley and eugenics. Further, the "differential diagnosis" technique is notoriously lax, and Wendell was far to credulous about what a proper differential diagnosis must include – and exclude. The worst Daubert decision of the year in our sandbox. We whacked Wendell here.
  10. Dunson v. Cordis Corp., 854 F.3d 551 (9th Cir. 2017). Back in 2014, we awarded a Ninth Circuit en banc decision, Corber v. Xanodyne, our #4 best case rating. Corber held that a California request for "coordination" triggered CAFA's mass action provision and supported removal to federal court. Unfortunately, with Dunson, Corber has now been distinguished into seeming oblivion. Apparently en banc doesn't matter much in the Ninth Circuit. It certainly didn't in Dunson. Request for "pre-trial" consolidation – no CAFA. Request for bellwether trials – no CAFA unless the result would be "binding" on the other cases, which is vanishingly rare. Basing the bellwether request on need to avoid inconsistent results? Not specific enough. After Dunson, we wonder how much is left of Corber. Form appears to be triumphing over substance. We derided Dunson here.

So that's the bottom ten. Unfortunately, the other side did better than usual this year – this is the first time in blog history that every one of the dregs cases has been an appellate decision. As for the near misses, we'd put United States ex rel. Campie v. Gilead Sciences, Inc., 862 F.3d 890 (9th Cir. 2017), at the top of the list, since it allowed fraud on the FDA theories in False Claims Act cases, and we hate cases that purport to give private plaintiffs ways to get around Buckman Co. v. Plaintiffs Legal Committee, 531 U.S. 341 (2001).

That's quite enough, thank you. We're ready to bring this exercise in the gnashing of teeth and rending of clothes to a close. Stay tuned, however. Next week, we take the litigation roller coaster up rather than down when we review the ten best drug/device decisions of 2017.

This article is presented for informational purposes only and is not intended to constitute legal advice.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

James Beck
In association with
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:
  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.
  • Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.
    If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here
    If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq you may opt out by clicking here

    Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

    Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

    Use of www.mondaq.com

    You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


    Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

    The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


    Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

    • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
    • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
    • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

    Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

    Information Collection and Use

    We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

    We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

    Mondaq News Alerts

    In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


    A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

    Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

    Log Files

    We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


    This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

    Surveys & Contests

    From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


    If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


    From time to time Mondaq may send you emails promoting Mondaq services including new services. You may opt out of receiving such emails by clicking below.

    *** If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of services offered by Mondaq you may opt out by clicking here .


    This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

    Correcting/Updating Personal Information

    If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

    Notification of Changes

    If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

    How to contact Mondaq

    You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

    If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.

    By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions