About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

89 Tul. L. Rev. 959 (2014-2015)

handle is hein.journals/tulr89 and id is 1017 raw text is: Post-Mensing Immunity Under the Louisiana Products Liability Act: Johnson v Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., and Its Implications for Louisiana Law I. O VERV IEW .................................................................................... 959 II. B ACKGROUND ............................................................................. 960 III. THE COURT'S D ECISION .............................................................. 965 IV A N ALY SIS ..................................................................................... 968 I. OVERVIEW Under the duty of sameness, manufacturers of generic drugs are required by federal law to design and label their products the same at all times as the corresponding brand-name drug[s].' Federal law thus requires the composition of metoclopramide, a generic drug used to treat digestive issues, to be identical to that of Reglan, its brand- name counterpart. Likewise, any warning labels associated with metoclopramide (including Dear Doctor warning letters and the Physicians'Desk Reference) must strictly mirror those disseminated in association with Reglan.2 Considering that approximately 80% of all prescriptions filled in the United States are filled with generic drugs,3 and that under current United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit precedent, brand-name manufacturers cannot be liable for injuries caused by generic versions of their drugs that they did not manufacture, the duty of sameness has the potential effect of placing a significant population of plaintiffs injured by the use of a generic drug up against two immunized defendants.4 If a generic manufacturer is not at liberty' to alter the composition or labeling of a potentially dangerous or inadequately labeled drug, and the brand-name manufacturer who created the drug (and its warning labels) owes no 1. Johnson v, Teva Pharm. USA, Inc., 758 E3d 605, 611 (5th Cir. 2014) (quoting PLIVA, Inc. v. Mensing, 131 S. Ct. 2567, 2578 (2011)). 2. Dear Doctor letters are communications issued by drug manufacturers to alert health care providers to any risks associated with a drug and are considered labeling. See NDAs: Dear Health Care Professional Letters, U.S. FOOD & DRUG ADMIN. (July 2, 2003), http://www.fda.gov/downloads/aboutfda/centersoffices/offlceofinedicalproductsandtobacco/c der/manualofpoliciesprocedures/ucm082012.pdf 3. Johnson, 758 E3d at 618 (Dennis, J., concurring in part, dissenting in part). 4. Id. at 615-16 (majority opinion). 5. Id. at 612. 959

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most