Fosamax

Third Circuit Clarifies Next Steps in Fosamax Decision

On remand from the U.S. Supreme Court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has in turn remanded the case to the district court to determine whether state law claims are preempted by federal law in the 500+ lawsuits pending regarding the medication Fosamax in Merck Sharpe & Dohme v. Albrecht. As previously discussed on this blog in May 2019, the United States Supreme Court held that the issue of federal preemption is one to be decided by the court and not a jury, while somewhat clarifying the “clear evidence” standard governing the analysis.

After the high court’s decision, it was unclear whether the Third Circuit would remand the cases to the district court for application of the Supreme Court’s guidance or decide the issue – a legal one, after all, as just declared by the Supreme Court – itself de novo. Following supplemental briefing by the parties, with a November 25, 2019, Order, the Third Circuit elected the former procedure, kicking these cases back to the district court on remand:

New Supreme Court Decision Offers Guidance for Mass Tort Preemption Defense

After years of limited guidance, the Supreme Court has finally provided direction to lower courts on the issue of preemption when they delivered their opinion in Merck v. Albrecht. “Preemption” is a common defense used by defendants in pharmaceutical mass tort litigation. Through this defense, pharmaceutical companies argue that the state law causes of action are preempted by the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) control over drug and medical device approval and labeling.

The Preemption Defense

The Merck v. Albrecht case centers the drug, Fosamax, as a focal point in the mass tort litigation. Fosamax is pharmaceutical used for osteoporosis treatment and the case revolves around atypical femur fractures caused by use of the osteoporosis drug. Merck, the maker of Fosamax, asserted the preemption defense. Merck argued that it was the state’s failure to warn consumers of the drug’s risk and causes of action could not be brought against Merck because the FDA rejected its proposed warning label change in 2008. When Merck began to receive reports of atypical femur fractures in the early 2000s, it submitted a proposed label change to the FDA in 2008 and included a warning for fractures. The FDA rejected this labeling change, therefore Merck argues it cannot be sued for “failure to warn” because its attempt to warn was rejected by the FDA. The plaintiffs argue that the proposed label change was rejected because it incorrectly referred to the fractures as stress fractures, rather than atypical femur fractures. In 2011, the FDA requested and changed the label to warn of atypical femur fractures.

Supreme Court Sends Merck’s Fosamax Product Liability Case Back to Appeals Court

The US Supreme Court vacated and remanded a products liability case involving claims alleging a failure to warn about risks of stress fractures related to the use of Fosamax, which is manufactured by Merck Sharpe & Dohme Corp. (“Merck”).

Fosamax is a drug that treats and prevents osteoporosis in post-menopausal women. Merck argued that the claims should be dismissed as they submitted “clear evidence” that FDA regulations prohibited them from changing the Fosamax label to include the stress fracture risk warnings. The Supreme Court held that the Third Circuit incorrectly determined that “clear evidence” is a question of fact for a jury; rather, the Court held that “clear evidence” is a question of law as it involves a legal determination about an agency decision.

The FDA approved the sale of Fosamax in 1995. At that time, the Fosamax label did not warn of the risk of atypical femoral fracture, a type of stress fracture in the thigh bone. However, through post-market surveillance, Merck later concluded that the use of Fosamax was associated with an increase risk of these fractures. In 2008, Merck submitted to the FDA a labeling change proposal that would have included the risk of “stress fractures,” however the FDA rejected that proposal. Merck contends that FDA would also have rejected a labeling change proposal with the more specific language warning of the risk of “atypical stress fracture.”

500 individuals who took Fosamax between 1999 and 2010 and suffered atypical femoral fractures sued Merck under state tort laws with the theory that state laws imposed on Merck a duty to warn of the risk of these atypical femoral fractures. In the District Court, Merck argued that the respondents’ state law claims should be dismissed as pre-empted by federal law, as it would have been impossible for Merck to comply with both state law (which requires risk warnings) and federal law (which prohibits labeling changes unless approved by the FDA). The District Court agreed with Merck, and granted summary judgment dismissing the suit.

US Supreme Court Tosses Ruling Against Merck on Fosamax Osteoporosis Drug

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday handed a victory to Merck & Co – at least for now – by throwing out a lower court ruling that had revived hundreds of lawsuits accusing the company of failing to properly warn patients of debilitating thigh-bone fractures from taking its osteoporosis drug Fosamax.

The nine justices unanimously directed the Philadelphia-based 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to reconsider its decision allowing the lawsuits to proceed even though federal regulators had rebuffed Merck when the company sought to add a warning to Fosamax’s label about the fracture risk.

The decision added clarity to a defense used by drug makers against product liability claims in which they argue that such litigation is preempted under federal law and the U.S. Constitution when a federal agency takes certain actions, as the Food and Drug Administration did in this case.

In a decision written by Justice Stephen Breyer, the court said that judges, not juries, must decide disputes over preemption, and that a drug manufacturer must show that it “fully informed” the FDA of the need for a warning before it was rebuffed. Lower courts now must revisit the case reflecting the Supreme Court’s guidance.

Fosamax Lawsuits’ Future to be Decided by Supreme Court

The fate of about 500 lawsuits involving the drug Fosamax is now in the hands of the U.S. Supreme Court.

The nation’s highest court has agreed to consider overturning an appellate court ruling that reinstated the lawsuits after a federal trial judge dismissed them.

The issue involves whether Merck, the manufacturer of the osteoporosis drug, failed to warn of the danger that patients taking Fosamax could develop a specific type of thigh bone fractures.

Merck argues that it asked the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to approve such a warning on its label, but the FDA denied its request.

Lawyers for the injured patients say Merck asked for a warning about a different kind of fracture than those involved in the lawsuits.

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in March 2017 that jurors should decide the issue. But the Trump administration — invited by the Supreme Court to weigh in — maintained this issue should be decided by judges.

* Word-Use Disclaimer

Legal funding is not a loan. It is the non-recourse purchase of an equitable lien in a plaintiffs’ legal claim. Words such as ‘loans,’ ‘lending,’ ‘borrow,’ etc., are used for search and marketing purposes only.
More info

TriMark Legal Funding LLC
1056 Green Acres Rd #102
Eugene, OR 97408