No. 18-803

Wendy B. Dolin v. GlaxoSmithKline, LLC, fka SmithKline Beecham Corporation

Lower Court: Seventh Circuit
Docketed: 2018-12-21
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Relisted (2)
Tags: clinical-trials drug-labeling drug-manufacturer fda-regulations impossibility-preemption labeling-changes preemption truthful-risks unilateral-labeling-changes unilateral-warning wyeth-v-levine
Key Terms:
FirstAmendment TradeSecret JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference: 2019-05-23 (distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Does federal law prevent a drug manufacturer from enhancing its label to reflect truthful risks revealed in its clinical trials when the relevant FDA regulations allow a manufacturer to make unilateral labeling changes and when the FDA encouraged the manufacturer to utilize those regulations to submit an appropriate labeling change?

Question Presented (from Petition)

QUESTION PRESENTED In Wyeth v. Levine, 555 U.S. 555 (2009), this Court held “impossibility pre-emption is a demanding defense” and, “absent clear evidence that the FDA would not have approved a change to [a drug’s] label, we will not conclude that it was impossible for [drug manufacturer] to comply with both federal and state requirements.” Id. at 571, 573. In this case, the Seventh Circuit vacated a jury’s verdict and found that, notwithstanding the fact “[the drug manufacturer] re-analyzed the placebo-controlled data on [its drug] and found a link between [its drug] and suicide in adults” (App. 23), the manufacturer was not permitted to issue a warning because FDA had implemented a class-wide suicide warning for such drugs which did not extend to adult patients beyond age 24. Id. The court found preemption even though an FDA expert testified the manufacturer was permitted to add its drug-specific suicide warning and the FDA had advised the manufacturer to submit its drug-specific warning using a procedure that allows manufacturers to strengthen warnings. App. 47-55. In vacating the jury’s verdict, the Seventh Circuit opined “no reasonable jury could find that the FDA would have approved an adult-suicidality warning ...” (App. 22). The court failed to appreciate the heightened evidence required under Levine, and failed to review the evidence in a light most favorable to the plaintiff. The question presented is: Does federal law prevent a drug manufacturer from enhancing its label to li QUESTION PRESENTED — Continued reflect truthful risks revealed in its clinical trials when the relevant FDA regulations allow a manufacturer to make unilateral labeling changes and when the FDA encouraged the manufacturer to utilize those regulations to submit an appropriate labeling change?

Docket Entries

2019-05-28
Petition DENIED.
2019-05-23
Supplemental brief of petitioner Wendy B. Dolin filed. (Distributed)
2019-05-22
Supplemental brief of respondent GlaxoSmithKline LLC, Formerly Known as SmithKline Beecham Corp., filed. (Distributed)
2019-05-20
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/23/2019.
2019-04-11
Reply of petitioner Wendy B. Dolin filed. (Distributed)
2019-04-10
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/26/2019.
2019-03-25
Brief of respondent GlaxoSmithKline LLC, Formerly Known as SmithKline Beecham Corp., in opposition filed.
2019-01-11
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including March 25, 2019.
2019-01-09
Motion to extend the time to file a response from January 22, 2019 to March 25, 2019, submitted to The Clerk.
2018-12-19
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due January 22, 2019)

Attorneys

GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC, Formerly Known as SmithKline Beecham Corp.,
Lisa Schiavo BlattWilliams & Connolly LLP, Respondent
Lisa Schiavo BlattWilliams & Connolly LLP, Respondent
Wendy B. Dolin
Bijan EsfandiariBaum Hedlund Aristei & Goldman, P.C., Petitioner
Bijan EsfandiariBaum Hedlund Aristei & Goldman, P.C., Petitioner
Bijan EsfandiariBaum Hedlund Aristei & Goldman, P.C., Petitioner