Dietrich v. Actavis, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Dietrich v. Actavis, Inc.

138 So. 3d 1163, 2014 WL 2101318, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 7633

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 21, 2014

DocketNo. 4D12-4589

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 138 So. 3d 1163 (Dietrich v. Actavis, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dietrich v. Actavis, Inc., 138 So. 3d 1163, 2014 WL 2101318, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 7633 (Fla. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See PLIVA, Inc. v. Mensing, — U.S.—,—, 131 S.Ct. 2567, 2577, 180 L.Ed.2d 580 (2011) (holding federal law prevents a generic drug manufacturer from “independently changing” its safety labels to provide additional warnings); Morris v. PLIVA, Inc., 713 F.3d 774, 777 (5th Cir.2013) (extending Mensing ⅛ holding so as to foreclose state tort claims based on a generic drug manufacturer’s failure to communicate approved label changes in a manner that the name brand manufacturer had not, i.e., “Dear Doctor” letters); Guarino v. Wyeth, LLC, 719 F.3d 1245, 1249 (11th Cir.2013) (agreeing with the Fifth Circuit’s reasoning in Morris, and holding a generic drug manufacturer’s failure to communicate approved label changes is preempted under federal law); but see Brasley-Thrash v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc., No. Civ. A. 10-00031-KD-N, 2011 WL 4025734, at *3 (S.D.Ala. Sept.12, 2011) (holding Mensing does not prevent a generic drug manufacturer from sending out a letter “that simply reiterates warnings contained in the approved label”). We find the reasoning and holding stated in Morris and Guarino to be most consistent with the Supreme Court’s ruling in Mensing.

STEVENSON, CONNER and FORST, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See PLIVA, Inc. v. Mensing, — U.S.—,—, 131 S.Ct. 2567, 2577, 180 L.Ed.2d 580 (2011) (holding federal law prevents a generic drug manufacturer from “independently changing” its safety labels to provide additional warnings); Morris v. PLIVA, Inc., 713 F.3d 774, 777 (5th Cir.2013) (extending Mensing ⅛ holding so as to foreclose state tort claims based on a generic drug manufacturer’s failure to communicate approved label changes in a manner that the name brand manufacturer had not, i.e., “Dear Doctor” letters); Guarino v. Wyeth, LLC, 719 F.3d 1245, 1249 (11th Cir.2013) (agreeing with the Fifth Circuit’s reasoning in Morris, and holding a generic drug manufacturer’s failure to communicate approved label changes is preempted under federal law); but see Brasley-Thrash v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc., No. Civ. A. 10-00031-KD-N, 2011 WL 4025734, at *3 (S.D.Ala. Sept.12, 2011) (holding Mensing does not prevent a generic drug manufacturer from sending out a letter “that simply reiterates warnings contained in the approved label”). We find the reasoning and holding stated in Morris and Guarino to be most consistent with the Supreme Court’s ruling in Mensing.

STEVENSON, CONNER and FORST, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

138 So. 3d 1163, 2014 WL 2101318, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 7633, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dietrich-v-actavis-inc-fladistctapp-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack