Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

lawsuitplaintiffdefendantwill
plaintiffdefendantwill

Related Cases

Gould v. Flato, 170 Misc. 378, 10 N.Y.S.2d 361
View Case »
McRoberts Protective Agency, Inc. v. Lansdell Protective Agency, Inc., 61 A.D.2d 652, 403 N.Y.S.2d 511
View Case »
American Elec. Power Co., Inc. v. Connecticut, 564 U.S. 410, 131 S.Ct. 2527, 180 L.Ed.2d 435, 72 ERC 1609, 79 USLW 4547, 11 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7480, 2011 Daily Journal D.A.R. 8968, 22 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 1184
View Case »
Ball v. Nye, 99 Mass. 582, 1868 WL 5483, 97 Am.Dec. 56
View Case »
Stone v. North Carolina Dept. of Labor, 347 N.C. 473, 495 S.E.2d 711, 18 O.S.H. Cas. (BNA) 1161, 1998 O.S.H.D. (CCH) P 31,513
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Wyeth, Inc. v. Weeks, 159 So.3d 649, Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 19,452

Facts

Danny and Vicki Weeks filed a lawsuit against several drug manufacturers, claiming that Danny suffered injuries from long-term use of the generic drug metoclopramide, which is the generic form of Reglan, a brand-name drug. The Weekses did not use the brand-name drug but alleged that the brand-name manufacturers, Wyeth LLC, Pfizer Inc., and Schwarz Pharma, Inc., failed to adequately warn about the risks associated with long-term use of Reglan. The brand-name defendants moved to dismiss the claims, arguing that they had no duty to warn about the risks of a competitor's generic product.

The Weekses concede that Mr. Weeks did not ingest any Reglan® manufactured by the three brand-name defendants, Wyeth LLC, Pfizer Inc., and Schwarz Pharma, Inc. The Weekses nonetheless assert that the brand-name defendants are liable for Mr. Weeks's harm on fraud, misrepresentation, and/or suppression theories because they at different times manufactured or sold brand-name Reglan® and purportedly either misrepresented or failed adequately to warn Mr. Weeks or his physician about the risks of using Reglan® long-term.

Issue

Under Alabama law, may a drug company be held liable for fraud or misrepresentation based on statements it made in connection with the manufacture or distribution of a brand-name drug, by a plaintiff claiming physical injury from a generic drug manufactured and distributed by a different company?

Under Alabama law, may a drug company be held liable for fraud or misrepresentation (by misstatement or omission), based on statements it made in connection with the manufacture or distribution of a brand-name drug, by a plaintiff claiming physical injury from a generic drug manufactured and distributed by a different company?

Rule

A fraudulent-misrepresentation action is governed by § 6–5–101, Ala.Code 1975, which provides that misrepresentations of a material fact made willfully to deceive, or recklessly without knowledge, and acted on by the opposite party, constitute legal fraud. An essential element of fraudulent-misrepresentation and fraudulent-suppression claims is a duty to disclose.

A fraudulent-misrepresentation action is governed by § 6–5–101, Ala.Code 1975, which provides that '[m]isrepresentations of a material fact made willfully to deceive, or recklessly without knowledge, and acted on by the opposite party, or if made by mistake and innocently and acted on by the opposite party, constitute legal fraud.'

Analysis

The court analyzed the claims under Alabama law and determined that the Weekses could potentially establish a claim for fraud against the brand-name manufacturers. The court noted that the Weekses were not asserting that the generic drug was defective but rather that the brand-name manufacturers had a duty to disclose risks associated with their product that could affect the prescribing decisions of physicians. The court emphasized that the Weekses' claims were based on the alleged misrepresentation or suppression of information regarding the risks of long-term use of Reglan.

In short, the Weekses' claim is based on what Wyeth said or did not say about Reglan and their assertion that those statements or omissions caused Danny's injuries.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court held that the brand-name manufacturer could be held liable for fraud or misrepresentation based on statements made in connection with the manufacture of the drug. This ruling allowed the Weekses' claims to proceed against the brand-name defendants.

The Supreme Court held that the brand-name manufacturer could be held liable for fraud or misrepresentation based on statements made in connection with the manufacture of the drug.

Who won?

The Weekses prevailed in the case as the court ruled that they could pursue their claims against the brand-name manufacturers for fraud and misrepresentation.

The Weekses might be able to state a claim for relief under Alabama law if they could prove that the brand-name manufacturers had a duty to warn Mr. Weeks's physician about the risks associated with long-term use of brand-name Reglan®.

You must be