In August 2016, the New Jersey Supreme Court examined the doctrine of preemption, and ruled that state law failure-to-warn claims against generic-drug manufactures are not preempted when the generic-drug manufacturer fails to timely update its warning labels following a label change to the brand-name drug. In re Reglan Litig., 226 N.J. 315, 336 (2016).
The court’s ruling in Reglan expanded a New Jersey consumer’s ability to recover against a generic-drug manufacturer under a state-law failure-to-warn claim—a claim that the manufacturers argued was preempted by federal law based on the U.S. Supreme Court’s holding in PLIVA v. Mensing, 131 S.Ct. 2567 (2011). This article will provide a brief background on federal preemption pre-Reglan, an analysis of the court’s decision, and future implications for consumers’ product liability suits.
Historical Supremacy Clause and Federal Preemption
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
