Sherman v. Pfizer, Inc.
| Decision Date | 30 April 2019 |
| Docket Number | No. 50914-8-II,50914-8-II |
| Citation | 8 Wash.App.2d 686,440 P.3d 1016 |
| Court | Washington Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Diana SHERMAN and Mark Sherman, Respondents, v. PFIZER, INC., Wyeth LLC (formerly known as Wyeth, Inc); Wyeth Holdings Corporation; Wyeth Pharmaceuticals Inc., Schwarz Pharma, Inc.; UCB, Inc; Alaven Pharmaceutical LLC, Qualitest Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Generics Bidco I, LLC, Ranbaxy Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Gastroenterology Associates, PLLC., Grace Kim, RPh, Roberta Matthews, RPh, Rite Aid Corporation, Defendants, Bruce A. Silverman, M.D., Respondent, Teva Pharmaceuticals, Inc., PLIVA, Inc., Barr Laboratories, Inc., Appellants. |
8 Wash.App.2d 686
440 P.3d 1016
Diana SHERMAN and Mark Sherman, Respondents,
v.
PFIZER, INC., Wyeth LLC (formerly known as Wyeth, Inc); Wyeth Holdings Corporation; Wyeth Pharmaceuticals Inc., Schwarz Pharma, Inc.; UCB, Inc; Alaven Pharmaceutical LLC, Qualitest Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Generics Bidco I, LLC, Ranbaxy Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Gastroenterology Associates, PLLC., Grace Kim, RPh, Roberta Matthews, RPh, Rite Aid Corporation, Defendants,
Bruce A. Silverman, M.D., Respondent,
Teva Pharmaceuticals, Inc., PLIVA, Inc., Barr Laboratories, Inc., Appellants.
No. 50914-8-II
Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 2.
Filed April 30, 2019
Robert William Novasky, Forsberg & Umlauf, P.S., 1102 Broadway Ste. 510, Tacoma, WA, 98402-3534, Jessica B. Jensen, Attorney at Law, Aaron Paul Riensche, Ogden Murphy Wallace PLLC, 901 5th Ave. Ste. 3500, Seattle, WA, 98164-2008, William Jay, Brian Burgess, Goodwin Law Office, 901 New York Ave. Nw, Washington, DC, 20001 for Petitioners.
Ralph David Pittle, Christopher Kirk Steuart, Medical Legal Consultants of Washington, 5355 204th Pl. Ne, Redmond, WA, 98053-4809, Lisa Taylor, Durham Taylor LLC, 1650 Whippoorwill Road, Watkinsville, GA, 30677, Eric Allen Norman, Jennifer D. Koh, Fain Anderson Vanderhoef Rosendahl O'Hal, 701 5th Ave. Ste. 4750, Seattle, WA, 98104-7089, for Respondents.
Eric Allen Norman, Jennifer D. Koh, Fain Anderson Vanderhoef Rosendahl O'Hal, 701 5th Ave. Ste. 4750, Seattle, WA, 98104-7089, for Other Parties.
PUBLISHED OPINION
Maxa, C.J.
¶1 PLIVA, Inc., Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., and Barr Laboratories, Inc. (collectively Generic Defendants) appeal the trial court’s denial of their summary judgment motion in a products liability lawsuit filed by Diana Sherman.
¶2 The Generic Defendants are manufacturers of metoclopramide, the generic version of the prescription drug Reglan. Sherman developed a movement disorder called tardive dyskinesia after taking metoclopramide for six years as prescribed by Dr. Bruce Silverman. She filed a lawsuit against the Generic Defendants, alleging that they had violated the Washington Product Liability Act (WPLA), chapter 7.72 RCW, by failing to provide adequate warnings about the risk of developing tardive dyskinesia associated with using metoclopramide.
¶3 Sherman’s duty to warn claim against the Generic Defendants derives from federally
approved changes to the Reglan label, also known as the "package insert," that in 2004 and 2009 strengthened the warnings about using metoclopramide. Sherman claims that the Generic Defendants violated their duty to warn in two ways. First, they failed to update their package inserts for generic metoclopramide to reflect the strengthened warnings on the revised Reglan labels. Second, they failed to communicate the strengthened warnings to Dr. Silverman and the physician community in general in other ways besides in their package inserts.
¶4 We hold that the trial court erred in denying the Generic Defendants’ summary judgment motion regarding (1) Sherman’s "failure to update" claim because Dr. Silverman’s testimony that he did not read any package inserts precluded any genuine issue of fact as to whether the Generic Defendants’ failure to update their metoclopramide warnings proximately caused her tardive dyskinesia ; and (2) Sherman’s "failure to communicate" claim because, under the facts of this case, the Generic Defendants
had no duty under the WPLA to communicate warnings by means other than the package insert.1
¶5 Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s order denying the Generic Defendants’ summary judgment motion and remand for the trial court to dismiss Sherman’s claims against the Generic Defendants.
FACTS
Prescription for Metoclopramide
¶6 Metoclopramide is a prescription medication that is used for the treatment of gastroesophageal reflux. A known risk of using metoclopramide includes the development of tardive dyskinesia, a neurological disorder characterized by abnormal involuntary movements.
¶7 Sherman first saw Dr. Silverman in 2003 for severe digestive issues. After other treatments failed to relieve Sherman’s symptoms, Dr. Silverman prescribed metoclopramide. While on metoclopramide, Sherman’s digestive symptoms improved significantly. She stayed on metoclopramide from September 2004 to December 2010.
¶8 Dr. Silverman evaluated Sherman regularly while she was on metoclopramide and before 2010 did not see any indication that she was experiencing involuntary movements. However, in June 2010, Sherman began experiencing involuntary movements. In August 2011, she was diagnosed with tardive dyskinesia.
Package Insert Warnings
¶9 Beginning in 1985, the package insert for Reglan contained a warning stating that tardive dyskinesia may develop in patients treated with metoclopramide. The warning stated that the risk of developing the syndrome was
"believed to increase with the duration of treatment and the total cumulative dose." Clerk’s Papers (CP) at 715. The warning also stated that "[e]xtrapyramidal symptoms, manifested primarily as acute dystonic reactions, occur in approximately 1 in 500 patients" treated with metoclopramide. CP at 715. Under the dosage and administration section, the package insert stated that "[t]herapy longer than 12 weeks has not been evaluated and cannot be recommended." CP at 716.
¶10 In 2004, the brand-name manufacturer revised the Reglan package insert. Both the indications and usage section and the dosage and administration section of the revised package insert contained a statement that therapy with metoclopramide"should not exceed 12 weeks in duration." CP at 766. There was no change to the reference to tardive dyskinesia in the warnings section.
¶11 In 2009, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) required the brand-name manufacturer to add a "black box warning" to the Reglan package insert. CP at 84. The warning was placed at the top of the package insert and stated:
WARNING
TARDIVE DYSKINESIA
Treatment with metoclopramide can cause tardive dyskinesia, a serious movement disorder that is often irreversible. The risk of developing tardive dyskinesia increases with duration of treatment and total cumulative dose. Metoclopramide therapy should be discontinued in patients who develop signs or symptoms of tardive dyskinesia. There is no known treatment for tardive dyskinesia. In some patients, symptoms may lessen or resolve after metoclopramide treatment is stopped. Treatment with metoclopramide for longer than 12 weeks should be avoided in all but rare cases where therapeutic benefit is thought to outweigh the risk of developing tardive dyskinesia.
See WARNINGS.
CP at 503.
¶12 The warnings section of the revised package insert contained additional information about tardive dyskinesia, including that "one published study reported a TD [tardive dyskinesia ] prevalence of 20% among patients treated for at least 12 weeks." CP at 507. The warning concluded, "Treatment with metoclopramide for longer than 12 weeks should be avoided in all but rare cases where therapeutic benefit is thought to outweigh the risk of developing TD." CP at 507.
Complaint
¶13 In 2013, Sherman filed a complaint against the Generic Defendants and others.2 In her amended complaint, she asserted a WPLA claim against the Generic Defendants for failing to provide adequate warnings to doctors regarding the use of metoclopramide. Specifically, Sherman alleged that the Generic Defendants had breached their duty to provide adequate warnings by failing (1) to update their package inserts for metoclopramide to match the strengthened warnings added to the Reglan label in 2004 and 2009, and (2) to communicate the new warning information in the revised Reglan labels to doctors through other means.
¶14 In his deposition, Dr. Silverman stated that he was aware when he prescribed metoclopramide for Sherman that one of the potential risks was development of some sort of movement disorder. For any patient on metoclopramide, including Sherman, he would always watch for movement disorders. Dr. Silverman stated that he was not aware of any clinician who had actually observed tardive dyskinesia associated with using metoclopramide, but that at some
point "word got around" that tardive dyskinesia was something for which doctors should be looking. CP at 192.
¶15 However, Dr. Silverman testified that he did not read package inserts and did not recall ever reading a package insert. He did not use package inserts to learn about medications. Specifically, Dr. Silverman testified that he had never read a package insert for Reglan or metoclopramide. He also did not recall ever seeing a "Dear Doctor" letter3 from a drug manufacturer. CP at 178. He...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dearinger v. Eli Lilly & Co.
...in 1978. Courts applying the learned intermediary doctrine have done so without recognizing an exception. See Sherman v. Pfizer, Inc. , 8 Wash. App. 2d 686, 440 P.3d 1016 (2019), review denied , 194 Wash.2d 1015, 452 P.3d 1241 (2019) ; see also Luttrell v. Novartis Pharm. Corp. , 894 F. Sup......
-
Essex v. Grant Cnty. Pub. Hosp. Dist. No. 1
..."this negligence was not a proximate cause of plaintiff's disability." Id.¶53 We followed Douglas in Sherman v. Pfizer, Inc. , 8 Wash. App. 2d 686, 698-99, 440 P.3d 1016 (2019), another case involving a drug manufacturer's failure to warn. There, a patient developed a movement disorder afte......
-
Davis v. Actavis, Inc. (In re Testosterone Replacement Therapy Prods. Liab. Litig.)
...authority on the question presented, the Court turns to other jurisdictions for guidance. Actavis points to Sherman v. Pfizer, Inc., 8 Wash. App. 2d 686, 440 P.3d 1016 (2019), review denied sub nom. Sherman v. Pliva, Inc., 194 Wash. 2d 1015, 452 P.3d 1241 (2019), another case in which a pla......
-
Davis v. Actavis, Inc. (In re Testosterone Replacement Therapy Prods. Liab. Litig.)
...the plaintiffs' arguments. But the Court has already explained why it "is not persuaded that the Florida Supreme Court would rely on Sherman to hold that a drug manufacturer has no duty to provide warnings in any manner other than the FDA-approved package insert." CMO 179, 2020 WL 6487327, ......