Merck & Co. has another chance for a reprieve in its long-running fight against Fosamax liability lawsuits. After an appeals court revived hundreds of patient claims last year, the U.S. Supreme Court has decided to hear Merck’s bid to put them to rest again.
Merck argues that the FDA rebuffed its 2008 bid to update the osteoporosis drug’s label to warn of a link to severe bone fractures, but decided to order a warning in October 2010, when Merck did so. Now, Merck shouldn’t be held liable for that lack of a warning, because the FDA’s labeling power shields it, the company says.
And the high court will now review that argument, in an important development for the drug industry. The question of FDA pre-emption has made its way through multiple courts in recent years, and Merck’s Supreme Court appeal could settle it. That, in turn, could affect product liability cases across pharma.
For decades, scientists have used sandwich ELISA assays as a reliable tool for understanding disease mechanism, progression, and prognosis. Bio-Techne, a global life sciences company, recently conducted a blind survey to see how researchers have been using ELISAs lately and how they select and verify assays for their studies.
The results were surprising. Learn which ELISA features are most important to scientific researchers in 2021, the impact of in-house validation studies to research workflows, and more.
The history in Merck’s case is similar to a few other legal battles. Back in 2014, a federal judge dismissed a set of Fosamax fracture claims, saying the FDA’s decisions pre-empt state-court claims from patients. An appeals court in New Jersey revived those lawsuits—about 500 of them—and ordered them to be tried before a jury, because the facts weren’t a question for a judge to decide.
In reviewing Merck’s request for a hearing, the high court asked the U.S. Solicitor General to weigh in, and in its amicus brief backing Merck, the office says exactly the opposite: that FDA pre-emption is a legal question for a judge, not a jury. The FDA’s decision to reject Merck’s proposed label change supported pre-emption because it “prevented [Merck] from modifying the relevant labeling before late 2010.” Thus, he added, the court of appeals made a mistake in rejecting Merck’s defense.