Supreme Court Rejects Novartis Bid To Hear Punitive Damages Case

In a setback to Novartis, the US Supreme Court has decided not to review a case in which the drugmaker argued that punitive damages should not be awarded by juries in product liability lawsuits. Why? Novartis hoped to convince the court that such penalties purportedly encroach on the ability of the FDA to enforce its authority. As we wrote last week, Novartis cited a 2009 ruling by the Supreme Court that a Vermont woman named Diana Levine had the right to sue Wyeth, which is now owned by Pfizer (PFE), in state court after alleging damage caused by one if its drugs. The drugmaker unsuccessfully cited preemption, which is the notion that FDA approval of a drug supersedes state law claims challenging safety, efficacy or labeling (more here). But, as we noted, Novartis maintained the decision did not apply to punitive damages, because the Levine case only involved compensatory damages. And Novartis raised the issue following a 2010 case in which a North Carolina jury awarded a family $12.6 million for alleged misconduct in punitive damages, although that was later reduced to $867,00 under state law caps. In that case, the jury decided that Novartis failed to adequately warn about the risks of its Zometa and Aredia bone-strengthening medications taken by Rita Fussman, who died four years ago of breast cancer. And a federal court judge later upheld punitive damages after reviewing evidence that suggested the drugmaker engaged in a high-level cover up concerning side effects. Novart...
Source: Pharmalot - Category: Pharma Commentators Authors: Source Type: blogs