Supreme Court Rules Generic Drug Makers Can't Be Liable for Injuries
If they follow the rules of the FDA
First Karen Bartlett lost more than 60% of her skin, suffered lung and esophageal damage and became legally blind after taking a generic painkiller. Now the Supreme Court has stripped her of a $21 million state court award.
In another example of its well-documented pro-business tilt, the high court ruled Monday that the generic drug maker wasn't liable for the painkiller's content or warning label because it must mimic the brand-name drug in both instances.
Not that the justices didn't sympathize with Bartlett's plight. The 5-4 decision, written by Justice Samuel Alito, said the case "arises out of tragic circumstances" and spread blame at the feet of doctors, Congress and the Food and Drug Administration.
Bartlett's injury "is tragic and evokes deep sympathy, but a straightforward application of pre-emption law requires that the judgment below be reversed," Alito said.
Hide Comments (0)
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post commentsMute this user?
Ban this user?
Un-ban this user?
Nuke this user?
Un-nuke this user?
Flag this comment?
Un-flag this comment?