Batoh v. McNeil-PPC, Inc., 3:14-cv-01462 (MPS)
| Citation | 167 F.Supp.3d 296 |
| Decision Date | 10 March 2016 |
| Docket Number | No. 3:14-cv-01462 (MPS),3:14-cv-01462 (MPS) |
| Court | United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Connecticut) |
| Parties | Amy Batoh, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Kyle Kimball, Deceased, Plaintiff, v. McNeil-PPC, Inc. and Johnson & Johnson, Defendants. |
Christopher L. Schnieders, David M. McMaster, Wagstaff & Cartmell, Kansas City, MO, Neal Lewis Moskow, Ury & Moskow, Fairfield, CT, for Plaintiff.
David F. Abernethy, Joshua M. Link, Drinker, Biddle & Reath, LLP, Philadelphia, PA, Kenneth P. Conour, Matthew P. Smith, Vernon I. Zvoleff, Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, San Francisco, CA, Christopher R. Drury, Robert Reginald Simpson, Shipman & Goodwin, Hartford, CT, for Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OF DECISON
In October, 2010, Kyle Kimball developed rare and extremely painful skin conditions after taking one dose of over-the-counter Motrin
. Over a year later, overcome by continued pain and suffering from these conditions and the damage they had done to his life, Kimball killed himself. His mother, Amy Batoh, has sued the manufacturer of Motrin and its parent company in this products liability case, claiming that the Motrin Kimball took contained inadequate warnings and was defective as designed, among other things. On cross-motions for summary judgment, I must decide principally (1) whether there is admissible evidence in the record from which a reasonable juror could find that Kimball would not have taken the Motrin
had the label borne the more explicit warnings that Batoh says were required, and (2) whether the defendants have established their defense of “impossibility preemption” with respect to the claim that Motrin harbored a design defect in its chemical composition. The tragic circumstances of this case do not make these decisions easy. Nonetheless, after carefully reviewing the voluminous record and considering the parties' briefs and oral arguments, I conclude (1) that there is no admissible evidence that Kimball would not have taken the Motrin had the label been more explicit and thus that Batoh cannot sustain the causation element of her failure-to-warn claim, and (2) that, because federal regulations barred the defendants from changing the active ingredient in Motrin without prior approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (the “FDA”), federal law prevented the defendants from complying with the state law duties this lawsuit would impose on them to alter the chemical composition of Motrin. Federal law thus preempts the design defect claim. I therefore grant summary judgment to the defendants.
The following facts—taken from the Amended Complaint, the parties' Local Rule 56(a) Statements, and their exhibits—are undisputed unless otherwise indicated.
Batoh, a Connecticut resident, is the mother and personal representative of Kimball's estate. Defendants McNeil-PPC, Inc. (“McNeil”) and Johnson & Johnson (“J&J”) (together, “Defendants”) are New Jersey Corporations. .) J&J “owns all of the stock of Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., which in turn owns all” of McNeil's stock. .) McNeil manufactures and sells Motrin
, an FDA-approved over-the-counter (“OTC”) medication for the relief of pain and inflammation and the reduction of fever. .)
The nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (“NSAID”) ibuprofen
is the active ingredient in Motrin. .) The FDA approved ibuprofen as a prescription medication for adults in 1974, and approved Motrin as an OTC medication in 1984. .) The FDA reviewed drug applications for ibuprofen in 1974, 1984, and 1994, and concluded that “the drug is safe and effective for use as recommended in the submitted labeling.” .) In 2006, the FDA estimated “that there are more than 100 million users of OTC ibuprofen each year in the United States and approximately 29 million prescriptions dispensed annually in this country.” .)
(“SJS”) and Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis (“TEN”) are severe cutaneous adverse reactions (“SCAR events”) “characterized by inflammation of the mucous membranes of the mouth, throat, eyelids, and anogenital region” (id. ¶ 9) and “painful and debilitating tissue injury and loss, epidermal blistering, necrosis, and sloughing.” (Id. ¶ 65) SJS and TEN can “result in massive skin loss, blindness, disfigurement, permanent disability, and death.” (Id. ) “Cases involving skin detachment over less than 10% of total body surface are classified as SJS; cases with 10-30% detachment are referred to as SJS/TEN overlap; and cases over 30% are listed as TEN.”2 .)
SJS and TEN are rare conditions. In 2006, the FDA estimated that the incidence of SJS and TEN, respectively, ranges from 1.2 to 6 per million per year and 0.4 to 1.2 per million per year. .) In its 1995 medical officer review of OTC Children's Motrin
,3 the FDA stated that, in rare cases, NSAIDs including ibuprofen can cause SJS and TEN. .)
On September 30, 1996, McNeil submitted to the FDA revised warning language for Motrin
aimed at people with aspirin sensitivity (“Aspirin Sensitivity Warning”), in response to draft language the FDA had sent McNeil several days earlier. In March of 1997, the FDA submitted recommended language to McNeil, and in June of 1997, McNeil submitted to the FDA its revised labeling for Children's Motrin. .) Despite this correspondence in 1996 and 1997, the FDA advised McNeil in July of 1997 not to implement any changes to the Aspirin Sensitivity Warning because the FDA was evaluating class labeling appropriate for all similar products. .) Nearly a year later, in a letter to the FDA dated June 1, 1998, McNeil proposed a new Aspirin Sensitivity Warning directing users to seek “emergency medical help immediately” if certain allergic reactions occurred. .) On June 4, 1998, the FDA directed McNeil to revise the Aspirin Sensitivity Warning again. .) In a letter dated September 15, 1998, the FDA advised McNeil that it had completed its evaluation of class labeling issues, and required, among other things, that McNeil change the Aspirin Sensitivity Warning to an “Allergy Alert” warning. .) Both parties agree that McNeil submitted proposed warning language in a letter to the FDA dated October 23, 1998. .) McNeil characterized its proposed language as “expanded,” but Batoh objects to that characterization. .)
On December 2, 1998, and again on February 11, 1999, the FDA sent faxes to McNeil, providing labeling revisions and directing McNeil to use the “Allergy Alert” warning that had been drafted by the FDA and sent to McNeil in the letter dated September 15, 1998. .) On March 15, 1999, McNeil submitted revised labeling that complied with the language in the FDA's letter of September 15, 1998, and the FDA approved that labeling on August 25, 2000. .)
In February 2005, the FDA received a Citizens' Petition (the “Citizens' Petition”) that asked the FDA to withdraw its approval of OTC ibuprofen products based on the risks of SJS and TEN ), or, at a minimum, require the following warning labels on OTC ibuprofen:
Serious Skin Reactions: Ibuprofen
may cause serious skin reactions that begin as rashes and blisters on the skin, and the areas of the eyes, mouth and genitalia. These early symptoms may progress to more serious and potentially life-threatening diseases, including Erythema Multiforme, Stevens Johnson Syndrome and Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis. Seek immediate attention if any of these symptoms develop while taking ibuprofen.
.) The Citizens' Petition also asked for the following language on OTC ibuprofen, under the heading “stop use and ask a doctor if”:
[A] skin rash or blisters on the eyes, mouth or genitalia occur because these symptoms may be an early sign of rare and life-threatening reactions including Erythema Multiforme
, Stevens Johnson Syndrome and Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis.
.)
In 2005, the FDA reviewed the labeling on all OTC NSAIDs, including Motrin
, and provided McNeil with a template for revisions to the OTC labels. The template added the words “skin reddening,” “rash,” and “blisters” to the list of symptoms in the “Allergy Alert.” .) The FDA asked NSAID manufacturers...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ferry v. Mead Johnson & Co.
...avoid strict liability if the product is properly prepared, and accompanied by proper directions and warning." Batoh v. McNeil-PPC, Inc. , 167 F. Supp. 3d 296, 321 (D. Conn. 2016) (quoting Vitanza , 257 Conn. at 375, 778 A.2d 829 ) (cleaned up). As in the case of brand-name drug manufacture......
-
Trisvan v. Heyman
...of concession that likelihood of harm would have been "minimal" if adequate warnings were provided); see also Batoh v. McNeil–PPC, Inc. , 167 F.Supp.3d 296, 320 (D. Conn. 2016) (recognizing two different design defect claims for pharmaceutical drugs: "one based on ... failure to provide ade......
-
Trejo v. Johnson
...tort action with which it conflicts' [citation] ...." ( Ibid. [28 N.E.3d at p. 456, fn. omitted].)The federal district court in Batoh , supra , 167 F.Supp.3d 296, relied on Reckis in holding that 21 U.S.C. § 379r(e) did not save the plaintiff's failure to warn claim regarding OTC Motrin. ( ......
-
Rinder v. Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp.
...Coordinated Pretrial Proceedings , No. 14 C 1748, 2017 WL 1836435, at *7-11 (N.D. Ill. May 8, 2017) ; Batoh v. McNeil-PPC, Inc. , 167 F.Supp.3d 296, 318-20 (D. Conn. 2016) ; Cross , 102 F.Supp.3d at 899-901 ; Muzichuck v. Forest Laboratories, Inc. , No. 1:07CV16, 2015 WL 235226, at *6-8 (N.......
-
CHAPTER § 6.02 Piercing the Corporate Veil
.... . of corporate directors and officers . . . will not justify treatment of the two as one business unit."); Batoh v. McNeil-PPC, Inc., 167 F. Supp.3d 296, 322 (D. Conn. 2016) ("'[I]t is a fundamental principle of corporate law that the parent corporation and its subsidiary are treated as s......