Taylor v. Gate Pharmaceuticals
| Decision Date | 05 February 2002 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 217290,Docket No. 227700.,Docket No. 217328,Docket No. 217269,Docket No. 217279 |
| Citation | 639 N.W.2d 45,248 Mich. App. 472 |
| Parties | Tamara TAYLOR and Lee Ann Rintz, Plaintiffs-Appellees/Cross-Appellants, v. GATE PHARMACEUTICALS, Abana Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Richwood Pharmaceutical Company, Ion Laboratories, Inc., Smithkline Beecham Corporation, Zenith Goldline Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Interneuron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Camall Company, Laboratories Servier, and Medeva Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Defendants-Cross-Appellees, and A.H. Robins Company, Inc., Wyeth Ayerst Laboratories Company, American Home Products Corporation, Defendants-Appellants/Cross-Appellees, and All Michigan Physicians who prescribed or gave Fen-Phen and/or Redux to Michigan Patients, Defendants. Tamara Taylor and Lee Anne Rintz, Plaintiffs-Appellees/Cross-Appellants, v. Gate Pharmaceuticals, Smithkline Beecham Corporation, Zenith Goldline Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Abana Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Richwood Pharmaceutical Company, Ion Laboratories, Inc., A.H. Robins Company, Inc., Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories Company, American Home Products Corporation, Interneuron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Camall Company, and Laboratories Servier, Defendants-Cross-Appellees, and Medeva Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Defendant-Appellant/Cross-Appellee, and All Michigan Physicians who prescribed or gave Fen-Phen and/or Redux to Michigan Patients, Defendants. Tamara Taylor and Lee Anne Rintz, Plaintiffs-Appellees/Cross-Appellants, v. Gate Pharmaceuticals, Zenith Goldline Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Abana Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Richwood Pharmaceutical Company, Ion Laboratories, Inc., Medeva Pharmaceuticals, Inc., A.H. Robins Company, Inc., Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories Company, American Home Products Corporation, Interneuron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Camall Company, and Laboratories Servier, Defendants-Cross-Appellees, and Smithkline Beecham Corporation, Defendant-Appellant/Cross-Appellee, and All Michigan Physicians who prescribed or gave Fen-Phen and/or Redux to Michigan Patients, Defendants. Tamara Taylor and Lee Anne Rintz, Plaintiffs-Appellees/Cross-Appellants, v. Smithkline Beecham Corporation, Zenith Goldline Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Abana Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Richwood Pharmaceutical Company, Ion Laboratories, Inc., Medeva Pharmaceuticals, Inc., A.H. Robins Company, Inc., Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories Company, American Home Products Corporation, Interneuron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Camall Company, and Laboratories Servier, Defendants-Cross-Appellees, and Gate Pharmaceuticals, Defendant-Appellant/Cross-Appellee, and All Michigan Physicians who prescribed or gave Fen-Phen and/or Redux to Michigan Patients, Defendants. Judith H. ROBARDS and Kenneth W. Robards, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Joyce E. KAFERLE, M.D., and Evelyn Eccles, M.D., Defendants, and Gate Pharmaceuticals, Smithkline Beecham Corporation, Zenith Goldline Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Abana Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Richwood Pharmaceutical Company, Ion Laboratories, Inc., Medeva Pharmaceuticals, Inc., A.H. Robbins Company, American Home Products Corporation, Wyeth Laboratories, Inc., Parmed Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Eon Labs Manufacturing, Inc., and Les Laboratories Servier, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Charfoos & Christenson, P.C. (by David R. Parker, Samuel Simpson, and J. Douglas Peters), Detroit, for Tamara Taylor, Lee Ann Rintz, and Judith H. and Kenneth W. Robards.
Buesser, Buesser, Black, Lynch, Fryhoff & Graham, P.C. (by Ronald F. Graham), Bloomfield Hills, and Schneck Weltman & Hashmall, LLP (by Edward S. Weltman, Jonathan I. Price, and Joanne M. Gray), New York, NY, for Gate Pharmaceuticals.
Honigman Miller Schwartz and Cohn (by Ronald S. Longhofer, Andrew Doctoroff, and Raymond M. Kethledge), Detroit, and Secrest, Wardle, Lynch, Hampton, Truex and Morley (by John Mitchell and Michael L. Updike), Farmington Hills, and Arnold & Porter (by Donald O. Beers, Darryl W. Jackson, and Michael C. Augustini), Washington, DC, for American Home Products Corporation, A.H. Robins Company, Incorporated, and Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories Company.
Plunkett & Cooney, P.C. (by Robert G. Kamenec, Detroit and William D. Boothi, Chicago, IL), and McDermott, Will & Emery (by Cathy McNeil Stein and Kevin E. Young), Boston, MA, for Medeva Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Kitch Drutchas Wagner DeNardis & Valitutti (by Thomas J. Foley and Linda M. Garbarino), Detroit, for SmithKline Beecham Corporation.
Hickey & Cianciolo, P.C. (by Steven M. Hickey), Detroit, for Richwood Pharmaceutical Company, Inc., and Zenith Goldline Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Mellon, McCarthy & Van Dusen, P.C. (by Daniel J. McCarthy and Richard R. Danforth), Troy, for Abana Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
David S. Zurvalec, Lansing, for the Michigan Manufacturers Association.
Clark Hill P.L.C. (by J. Thomas Lenga)(Hugh F. Young, Jr., of Counsel), Detroit; Reston, VA, for the Product Liability Advisory Council, Inc.
Pepper Hamilton LLP (by Scott Gorland, Michelle Motowski, and Kelly Schadel), Detroit, and Daniel J. Popeo and Richard A. Samp, Washington, DC, for Washington Legal Foundation.
Kelley Cawthorne (by Dennis O. Cawthorne and James Cavanagh), Lansing, and Covington & Burling (by Bruce N. Kuhlik, Marialuisa S. Gallozzi, and Erika F. King), and Russel A. Bantham and Marjorie E. Powell, Washington, DC, for Pharmaceutical and Research Manufacturers of America.
Before: COLLINS, P.J., and MURPHY and JANSEN, JJ.
At issue in these consolidated products liability appeals is the constitutionality of M.C.L. § 600.2946(5), which limits the liability of drug manufacturers and sellers. In Docket Nos. 217269, 217279, 217290, and 217328, defendants American Home Products Corporation,1 Medeva Pharmaceutials, Inc., SmithKline Beecham Corporation, and Gate Pharmaceuticals appeal by leave granted an order of the Wayne Circuit Court that denied their motion for summary disposition predicated on M.C.L. § 600.2946(5). The court ruled that M.C.L. § 600.2946(5) was unconstitutional because it improperly delegated to the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) the legislative function of determining a cause of action.2 In Docket No. 227700, plaintiffs Judith and Kenneth Robards appeal by leave granted an order of the Washtenaw Circuit Court granting summary disposition in favor of the manufacturing defendants on the basis of M.C.L. § 600.2946(5). That court found M.C.L. § 600.2946(5) to provide an affirmative defense to liability and held that the provision was not constitutionally infirm.3 Our review of the statutory provision at issue leads us to the conclusion that it works an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority. Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the Wayne Circuit Court, reverse the decision of the Washtenaw Circuit Court, and remand.
Plaintiffs in these separate cases are suing the drug manufacturers and distributors of certain diet drugs. The primary drugs at issue are dexfenfluramine (commonly known as Redux) and fenfluramine and phentermine (in combination, commonly known as fen-phen). Defendants moved for summary disposition citing M.C.L. § 600.2946(5), which tort reform statute limits the liability of drug manufacturers and sellers in products liability actions if the drug at issue was approved for safety by the FDA and labeled in compliance with FDA standards.4 Plaintiffs did not contest the applicability of M.C.L. § 600.2946(5), nor did they argue that they had pleaded their complaints to avoid its application. Rather, plaintiffs contended that the statute was unconstitutional on various grounds.
This Court reviews de novo a trial court's ruling on a motion for summary disposition. Spiek v. Dep't of Transportation, 456 Mich. 331, 337, 572 N.W.2d 201 (1998). The constitutionality of a statute is also reviewed de novo as a question of law. Stevenson v. Reese, 239 Mich.App. 513, 516, 609 N.W.2d 195 (2000). Here, we are presented a close question: Is M.C.L. § 600.2946(5) constitutionally infirm under Const 1963, art 4, § 1 as an unlawful delegation of legislative authority?5 The general standards applicable to claims that a statute is facially unconstitutional are well established:
Statutes are presumed to be constitutional, and courts have a duty to construe a statute as constitutional unless its unconstitutionality is clearly apparent. Caterpillar, Inc. v. Dep't of Treasury, 440 Mich. 400, 413, 488 N.W.2d 182 (1992); Mahaffey v. Attorney General, 222 Mich.App. 325, 344, 564 N.W.2d 104 (1997). The party asserting the constitutional challenge has the burden of proving the law's invalidity. In re Hamlet (After Remand), 225 Mich.App. 505, 521-522, 571 N.W.2d 750 (1997). A party challenging the facial constitutionality of a statute must establish that no circumstances exist under which it would be valid. Council of Organizations & Others For Ed. About Parochiaid, Inc. v. Governor, 455 Mich. 557, 568, 566 N.W.2d 208 (1997). [Stevenson, supra at 517, 609 N.W.2d 195.]
The parties dispute whether M.C.L. § 600.2946(5) violates Const 1963, art 4, § 1, which states: "The legislative power of the State of Michigan is vested in a senate and a house of representatives." Legislative power, in general, refers to the authority to make, alter, amend, and repeal laws. Harsha v. Detroit, 261 Mich. 586, 590, 246 N.W. 849 (1933). Although Michigan's Constitution does not explicitly provide that legislative power cannot be delegated, a nondelegation doctrine has been applied through judicial interpretation. Miller v. Dep't of Treasury, 385 Mich. 296, 313, 188 N.W.2d 795 (1971) (Brennan, J., dissenting).
Challenges premised on the theory of improper delegation are common. Thus, the framework and standards by which courts address this specific constitutional challenge are equally well established:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
WAYNE CTY. BD. OF COM'RS v. WAYNE CTY. AIRPORT AUTH.
...constitutionality of a statute must establish that no circumstances exist under which it would be valid. Taylor v. Gate Pharmaceuticals, 248 Mich.App. 472, 477, 639 N.W.2d 45 (2001), lv gtd 466 Mich. 889, 649 N.W.2d 72 (2002). "`The fact that the ... [a]ct might operate unconstitutionally u......
-
Taxpayers of Michigan Against Casinos v. State
...573, 582, 640 N.W.2d 321 (2001). The party asserting the constitutional challenge has the burden of proof. Taylor v. Gate Pharmaceuticals, 248 Mich.App. 472, 477, 639 N.W.2d 45 (2001). Before addressing the constitutionality of a provision, this Court must examine alternative, nonconstituti......
-
Garcia v. Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories
...Michigan Court of Appeals held that this statute was repugnant to the Michigan constitution in the case of Taylor v. Gate Pharmaceuticals, 248 MichApp. 472, 639 N.W.2d 45 (2001), because the statute impermissibly delegated legislative authority to the FDA as the final arbiter of drug safety......
-
Taylor v. Smithkline Beecham Corp.
...of final arbiter with respect to whether a particular drug may form the basis of a products liability action in Michigan." 248 Mich.App. at 483, 639 N.W.2d 45. Yet, this statute only establishes that a determination of independent significance, here the FDA finding that a drug is safe and e......