United States v. Dianovin Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

342 F. Supp. 724, 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13969
CourtDistrict Court, D. Puerto Rico
DecidedMay 1, 1972
DocketCiv. 43-69
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 342 F. Supp. 724 (United States v. Dianovin Pharmaceuticals, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Puerto Rico primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Dianovin Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 342 F. Supp. 724, 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13969 (prd 1972).

Opinion

ORDER

TOLEDO, District Judge.

On February 17, 1969,. this Court granted an Order of Permanent Injunction against Dianovin Pharmaceuticals, Inc. arid Nicolás O. Cabrero Oronoz, defendants in the present proceeding, generally prohibiting defendants from manufacturing or introducing into interstate commerce drugs manufactured by the defendants in violation of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. On June 29, 1970, plaintiff, United States of America and defendants, both requested that the referred to injunction be suspended. However, both parties agreed that the injunction would revert to its full force and effect if defendants were to commit any of the following acts:

(1) that the methods used in and the facilities and controls used by the defendants for the manufacture processing, packing and holding of drugs do not conform to and are not operated in conformity with current good manufacturing practices; or

(2) that any drug manufactured by the defendants is found by the Government to be adulterated or misbranded within the meaning of the law.

The plaintiff, on February 5, 1971, moved that this Court reinstate the terms of the permanent injunction, alleging that defendants' manufacturing *726 of drugs did not conform to good manufacturing practices and that drugs manufactured by the defendants were found to be adulterated or misbranded within the meaning of the law.

Evidentiary hearings on the Government’s motion were held on May 4, 5 and 6, 1971. On July 28, 1971, defendants filed a Motion for Dismissal alleging lack of jurisdiction under Sections 331 and 332 of Title 21, United States Code.

On the basis of the foregoing, the files and record in the above captioned cause, and after considering the evidence which was introduced by the parties herein, and reviewing the memoranda submitted, and otherwise being duly advised on the premises, the Court makes the following:

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. That Vitamin K for injection, otherwise known as Menadione Sodium Bisulfite Injection, is listed in the National Formulary.

2. That the National Formulary requires that sterile ampules for injection be packed in such a manner as to prevent contamination or loss of contents.

3. That on November 25, 1970, December 3, 1970 and January 8, 1971, representative samples of ampules of Vitamin K for injection, manufactured by defendants and identified as Lots 70-12 and 70-19, were collected from defendants’ finished products storeroom. The ampules were tested by United States Food and Drug Analysts for completeness of closure by visual examination after their immersion in a dye solution. A significant number of the ampules were found to have permitted the dye to become mixed with the drug, showing incomplete closure of the ampules.

4. That on January 15, 1971, a sample consisting of approximately 500 ampules of Vitamin K for injection, manufactured by defendants and bearing the Lot number 7-12, was collected from the Ponce District Hospital. Of those tested for leakage of the drug, 5% were found to allow loss of their contents.

5. Inspection of the Dianovin Pharmaceutical plant by United States Food and Drug Administrators on November 25, 26, 27 and December 3, 1979, revealed numerous deficiencies in the methods, facilities and controls employed by the defendants for the manufacture, processing, packing, labeling and distribution of drugs, including sterile Vitamin K for injection:

(a) batch records for several drugs contained unexplained and unendorsed changes in the amounts of chemicals from that shown on the master formula, failed to indicate the ph measurement of the drug or that such a test was ever performed, failed to make any comparison between theoretic and actual batch yield, did not bear the date of the drug’s sterilization.

(b) a number of broken or open windows were found in, or immediately adjacent to, the area in which sterile drugs for injection are produced.

(c) .environmental testing for contamination carried out in the drug filling room indicated the presence of as many as sixteen bacterial colonies on days when filling operations for sterile drugs were being carried out, and the firm’s records failed to indicate any testing of the filling room during one day of its use.

(d) the defendant, Nicolás O. Cabrero, was observed without a head covering while engaged in the manufacture of a sterile drug for injection.

(e) no system of label accountability exists or is employed in the firm’s labeling operations, and loose labels were found lying on shelves in the labeling area. There was no record that printing plates used in the labeling of vials and ampules were examined for accuracy after their receipt from the manufacturers, and a number of ampules of drugs had been left in the manufacturing area identified only by a piece of unattached paper.

*727 6. The batch record of a drug is intended to provide a precise manufacturing history of any particular batch or lot of a drug, and a step by step record of the exact manner and conditions under which that drug was produced, including the amounts and strength of each component, results of both in production and finished product testing, amount of drug actually produced and amount expected to be produced, and the dates on which each step in the process was accomplished. Each separate recording must bear the initials of the individual to insure that the step and its recordation are correct. The absence of any one of the above types of data makes it impossible to assure that errors have not been committed and that the batch of drugs was manufactured, processed, or packed in the proper manner.

7. The physical condition of the building or facility in which drugs are manufactured, processed, packed or held, is a major factor of current good manufacturing practices, especially with respect to sterile drugs for injection. Unless such facilities are adequate and are properly maintained, controls and procedures intended to assure that the drug is free from contamination are likely to be ineffective.

Any broken or open windows in or adjacent to production areas leading to the outside of the building, significantly increase the contamination of the environment and increase the chances of contamination of the filling room and the finished product. Environmental testing of both the filling room and adjacent areas is indicative of the effectiveness of contamination controls, and in the absence of such tests there is no assurance that the atmosphere and any drug filled under these conditions is not contaminated by micro-organisms. The environment of the room in which sterile drugs are filled must be tested on each day in which the drug is filled, and if the tests show more than one bacterial colony, the drug must be destroyed or resterilized. The presence of thirteen colonies on one settling plate evidences that the controls and procedures are of little effect, and that the room is contaminated.

8. Procedures for the labeling of drugs must be such that each label is specifically accounted for both prior and subsequent to the labeling operation for each batch of drugs.

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

Related

United States v. Pets Smellfree, Inc.
22 F.3d 235 (Tenth Circuit, 1994)
United States v. 789 Cases, More or Less
799 F. Supp. 1275 (D. Puerto Rico, 1992)
Retkwa v. Orentreich
152 Misc. 2d 691 (New York Supreme Court, 1991)
United States v. Dianovin Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
475 F.2d 100 (First Circuit, 1973)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
342 F. Supp. 724, 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13969, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-dianovin-pharmaceuticals-inc-prd-1972.