Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Ass'n v. Food & Drug Administration

634 F.2d 106
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit
DecidedNovember 5, 1980
DocketNo. 80-1455
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 634 F.2d 106 (Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Ass'n v. Food & Drug Administration) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Ass'n v. Food & Drug Administration, 634 F.2d 106 (3d Cir. 1980).

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM:

In this appeal, the National Association of Chain Drug Stores, Inc. challenges the Food and Drug Administration’s authority to promulgate 21 C.F.R. § 310.515 (1980).1 The challenged regulation requires that patient package insert be provided to [108]*108every patient receiving certain estrogen drugs. In a thorough and well-reasoned opinion, Judge Stapleton, of the District of Delaware, set forth the statutory grounds for the FDA’s regulation.2 We affirm the judgment of the district court.

Responding to the recent studies linking postmenopausal use of estrogens with endometrial cancer,3 the FDA conducted hearings and published the estrogen regulation. Although the FDA has broad statutory authority to protect the public health by “[making] ... such rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of [The Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act of 1938, 21 U.S.C. § 301 et seq. (1976)],” 4 the FDA must exercise that power pursuant to a Congressional objective expressed elsewhere in the Act. Mourning v. Family Publications Services, Inc., 411 U.S. 356, 369, 93 S.Ct. 1652, 1660, 36 L.Ed.2d 318 (1973).

In the instant case, the district court found, and this Court affirms, that the Agency promulgated the challenged regulation in order to effectuate the objectives reflected in Section 502(a) of the Act, 21 U.S.C. § 352(a) (1976). Section 502(a) authorizes the Agency to act if it finds a drug’s labeling to be false or misleading, as those terms are defined in Section 201, 21 U.S.C. § 321 (1976) of the Act. The FDA found that, without the patient package insert, the estrogen labeling was “misleading” because it failed to reveal facts “with respect to consequences which may result from the use of the article to . . . under the conditions of use prescribed in the labeling ... or under such conditions of use as are customary or usual.” 21 U.S.C. § 321. On its face, therefore, the Act authorizes the Agency’s actions.

We reject appellant’s argument that the legislative history of the 1938 Act, read in conjunction with the Durham-Humphrey Amendments to the Act in 1951 (Section 503(b)(2), 21 U.S.C. § 353(b)(2) (1976)), requires a contrary decision. Section 503(b)(2) exempted prescription drugs from some labeling requirements but not from those presently in issue. The Senate Report states:

Paragraph (2) of the new subsection (b) provides that a drug dispensed on prescription shall be exempt from the provisions of the act relating to misbranding of drugs except those which specify that a drug shall be deemed to be misbranded if its labeling is false or misleading in any particular (Sec. 502(a)) . .. These provisions continue to apply to any drug subject to the act, whether sold over-the-counter or on prescription.

(emphasis added). S.Rep.No.946, 82d Cong., 1st Sess. 9-10 (1951), reprinted in [1951] U.S.Code Cong. & Ad.Serv., pp. 2454, 2462. Thus, while Congress closed the door on one statutory ground for FDA supervision of the labeling of prescription drugs, it appears to have left open Section 502(a) as a separate passageway through which the FDA may require patient package inserts.

Accordingly, the district court’s judgment will be affirmed.

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

Related

Feldman v. Lederle Laboratories
479 A.2d 374 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1984)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
634 F.2d 106, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pharmaceutical-manufacturers-assn-v-food-drug-administration-ca3-1980.