Health industry online - you can't heed what you don't read - u.s. supreme court - wyeth v. levine
HEALTH INDUSTRY ONLINE - You Can't Heed What You Don't Read - U.S. Supreme Court - Wyeth v. Levine
• MARCH 19, 2009 • PREPARED BY You Can't Heed What You Don't Read - U.S. Supreme Court - Wyeth v. Levine
This much-anticipated opinion has put to rest a hotly
contested issue of whether the FDA or a jury decides if a
product label sufficiently warns physicians of a product's
risk. By this case, the U.S. Supreme Court has placed the
decision of how much warning a product label should
contain in the hands of lay juries. Levine concerned
Phenergan, an injectable medication used to treat nausea.
At issue was the sufficiency of a warning that an “IV-push”
method of administration - where the drug is injected into
the patient's vein - presented a risk that the drug will enter
the patient's artery and cause irreversible gangrene. Levine
received an IV-push injection, the product entered an
artery, she developed gangrene and lost her right forearm
and her livelihood. The Court observed that “the physician's
assistant who treated [Levine] …disregarded Phenergan's
label and pushed the drug into a single spot on her arm that
is most likely to cause inadvertent intra-arterial injection.”
“When asked why she ignored Phenergan's label and failed
to stop pushing the drug after [Levine] complained of
burning pains, the physician's assistant explained that it
would have been 'just crazy' to 'worr[y] about an [intra-
HEALTH INDUSTRY
The question Levine answered was whether the FDA's drug
labeling judgment “preempts state law products liability”
claims and how much deference, if any, should be accorded
to FDA judgment. According to the Levine Court, different
labeling judgments are necessary to make drugs safe; the
FDA determines the minimum, or floor, for the warnings
that must be provided, and lay juries decide if the FDA
History has shown and Levine demonstrates that, while all
medications are capable of producing adverse outcomes to
some patients, the risk of harm increases when medical
practitioners are not familiar with product labeling or they
do not use the products as intended. After all, had the
http://www.strasburger.com/p4p/publications/wyeth-v-levine-031909.htm (1 of 2) [3/19/2009 1:14:22 PM]
HEALTH INDUSTRY ONLINE - You Can't Heed What You Don't Read - U.S. Supreme Court - Wyeth v. Levine
medical provider in Levine simply read and heeded the
Phenergan labeling, another topic would occupy this
newsletter. Yet the Vermont jury and the Supreme Court
believe that had the label contained more warning, Ms.
Levine would not have been injured. The Court missed an
important opportunity to address the real issue of patient
safety. Under the facts in Levine, it simply did not follow
that a physician's assistant who was unaware of the current
labeling could have avoided injury to Ms. Levine if the label
had listed enhanced warnings. The much-anticipated Levine
U.S. Supreme Court opinion will have profound and long-
term implications for industry and litigants alike as
manufacturers struggle to comply with both the
requirements of federal law and the subjective requirements
PUBLICATIONS:
• To view past issues of Health Industry Online, please visit • DISCLAIMER: Articles contained within this newsletter provide information on general legal issues and are
not intended to provide advice on any specific legal matter or factual situation. This information is not
intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, a lawyer-client relationship. Readers should not act
upon this information without seeking professional counsel.
ADVERTISEMENT NOTICE: This e-mail may constitute a commercial electronic mail message subject to
the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003. If you do not wish to receive further commercial electronic mail messages from
be removed from future mailings. To update your address, please send an email to
including the updated information. Strasburger & Price, LLP, 901 Main Street, Suite 4400, Dallas, TX 75202.
http://www.strasburger.com/p4p/publications/wyeth-v-levine-031909.htm (2 of 2) [3/19/2009 1:14:22 PM]
0 6 5 0 0 M E X I C O , D . F . M E X I C O T E L : ( 3 3 - 1 ) 4 2 - 6 0 - 2 7 - 0 0 F A X : ( 3 3 - 1 ) 4 2 - 6 0 - 2 7 - 1 3 E - m a i l : m a i l c e n t r a l @ g o o d r i c h ri q u e l m e . c o m h t t p : / / w w w . g o o d r i c h r i q u e l m e . c o m Important notice for patent owners for pharmaceuticals in Mexico Last September 19, 2003, President Fox administration a
To All MCPASD Staff Members: We are pleased to offer you a 403(b) plan to help you save for your future retirement on a tax sheltered basis. This is a good time to consider supplementing your retirement savings by enrolling in the 403(b) plan. Enclosed is a paper titled “Important Benefit Information Regarding Your 403(b) Plan”, which provides some general information. We are enclosi