Brinkley v. Pliva, Inc., No. 13-3663 (8th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff filed suit against Pliva, manufacturer of the prescription medication metoclopramide, alleging that the medication caused her to develop tardive dyskinesia. On appeal, plaintiff appealed the district court's dismissal of her claims. The court concluded that the prescribing physicians' exclusive reliance on information from the brand-name manufacturers broke any causal link between Pliva's failure to incorporate the 2004 label change and the plaintiffs' injuries; to the extent plaintiff alleges failure to warn claims against Pliva based on the allegedly inadequate content or manner of delivery of the 2004 warnings, her claims are squarely preempted by federal law; because plaintiff failed to explain how Pliva could avoid liability under Missouri law for the alleged design defects without changing its product, changing its labeling, or leaving the market, plaintiff's design defect claims - whether sounding in strict liability or negligence - are preempted by impossibility; and federal law preempts plaintiff's implied warranty claims. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Civil case - Products liability. The prescribing physician's exclusive reliance on information from the brand-name drug manufacturers broke any causal link between Pliva's failure to incorporate a 2004 label change and the plaintiff's injury; federal law preempts any state law claim requiring a generic drug manufacturer to design its drug, change its labeling or leave the market to avoid liability under state law, and plaintiff's design defect and implied warranty claims were properly dismissed.
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.