'Wyeth': Good for Plaintiffs?

Called the mother of all pre-emption cases, Wyeth v. Levine was highly anticipated by plaintiffs and defendants alike, and many jurists as well. In anticipation of the Supreme Court’s Wyeth ruling, some judges delayed ruling on summary judgment motions; some plaintiffs’ attorneys either didn’t file or delayed prosecution of cases; and some defense attorneys sought settlement discounts or even refused to come to the table. The case, decided by the U.S. Supreme Court on March 4, was the third in a series of pre-emption matters decided by the court in the past 18 months.

First, came Riegel v. Medtronic , 128 S.Ct. 999 (2008), where in an 8-1 decision the court found that federal law expressly pre-empted the plaintiff’s state court action in a medical device case. The second in the trio of pre-emption decisions was Warner-Lambert v. Kent , 128 S.Ct. 1168 (2008), where in a 4-4 vote (with Justice John Roberts not participating), the court upheld a decision that a drug manufacturer can be liable in a state tort action for misrepresentations in submissions to the FDA about risk-related matters.

The ‘Wyeth’ Case