Fullington v. Pfizer, Inc., et al., No. 12-2945 (8th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CaseIn this product liability suit against the manufacturers of the prescription drug Reglan and its generic equivalent (metoclopramide), plaintiff appealed the district court's adverse grant of summary judgment to Brand Defendants and its dismissal of her claims with prejudice against Generic Defendants. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the Brand Defendants where plaintiff's claims were not viable under Arkansas law because she stipulated that she never used Reglan manufactured or distributed by any of the Brand Defendants. In regards to the claims against the Generic Defendants, the court reversed the dismissal of plaintiff's non-warning breach of implied warranty claims and remanded for further consideration as to whether they adequately stated viable claims under Arkansas law and if so, whether the Generic Defendants could nonetheless establish preemption. It was not immediately clear whether Arkansas offered generic drug manufacturers an opportunity, consistent with federal obligations to somehow alter an otherwise unreasonably dangerous drug. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's failure to warn and failure to update claims; reversed the dismissal of plaintiff's non-warning design defect and breach of implied warrant claims; and remanded for further proceedings.
Court Description: Civil case - Products liability. Because plaintiff stipulated that she never used Reglan manufactured or distributed by the companies who sold the drug under that brand, she cannot hold them liable under Arkansas law; plaintiff's failure-to-warn claims against the manufacturers of metoclopramide, the generic version of Reglan, are preempted and were properly dismissed; however, her claims based on non-warning design defect and breach of implied warranty claims are not preempted, and the district court erred in dismissing those claims; on remand, the district court can consider whether the claims adequately state viable claims under Arkansas law and if so,whether the generic manufacturers can nonetheless establish preemption; district court properly dismissed plaintiff's claims against defendant PLIVA for failing to update its labeling. Judge Murphy, concurring. (The reader may also wish to review this court's June 14, 2013 opinion in Bell v. Pfizer, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 12002).
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.