California Court of Appeal

In a suit alleging a failure to warn of the potential long-term neurological effects of a drug manufactured by defendants, summary judgment for defendants is reversed as to the manufacturer of the name-brand version of the drug, and affirmed as to the manufacturers of the generic version, where: 1) the common-law duty to use due care owed by a name-brand prescription drug manufacturer when providing product warnings extends not only to consumers of its own product, but also to those whose doctors foreseeably rely on the name-brand manufacturer's product information when prescribing a medication, even if the prescription is filled with the generic version of the prescribed drug; 2) plaintiff showed that there was a material factual dispute as to whether her doctor relied on the name-brand manufacturer's product information; but 3) plaintiff was unable to show that her doctor relied on any information supplied by the generic manufacturer defendants.

Appellate Information

• Decided 11/07/2008
• Published 11/07/2008

Judges

• SIGGINS, J.

Court

• California Court of Appeal

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Law Office of Laurence O. Masson, Laurence O. Masson, San Francisco, Medical Legal Consultants of Washington, Ralph D. Pittle, Bellevue, WA, Public Citizen Litigation Group, Brian S. Wolfman, Washington, D.C., Center for Constitutional Litigation, Valerie M. Nannery, for Appellant.


• For Appellees:
  
• Gordon & Rees, Stuart M. Gordon, James R. Reilly, Fletcher C. Alford, San Francisco, Davis Graham & Stubbs, Jeffrey R. Pilkington, for Respondent Wyeth, Inc., Hanson Bridgett Marcus Vlahos & Rudy, Merton A. Howard, Jill N. Cartwright, San Francisco, for Respondent Pliva, Inc., Tucker Ellis & West, Michael C. Zellers, Peter E. Schnaitman, Richard A. Dean, Kristen L. Mayer, Jade T. Chao, San Francisco, for Respondent Purepac Pharmaceutical Co., Goodwin Procter, Elizabeth F. Stone, San Francisco, Jonathan I. Price, for Respondent Teva Pharmaceuticals, Inc.