Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Albrecht
Is a state-law failure-to-warn claim preempted when the FDA rejected the drug manufacturer’s proposal to warn about the risk after being provided with the relevant scientific data; or must such a case go to a jury for conjecture as to
why the FDA rejected the proposed warning? Tab Group
U.S. Chamber files coalition amicus brief at merits stage, arguing Supreme Court should reverse Third Circuit’s mistaken approach to Wyeth v. Levine’s “clear evidence” standard
U.S. Chamber urges Supreme Court to clarify scope of conflict preemption after Wyeth v. Levine
The U.S. Chamber and Product Liability Advisory Council, Inc. filed an
amicus brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to review the scope of conflict preemption after Wyeth v. Levine, 555 U.S. 555 (2009). The brief explained that review is needed to resolve conflicts and confusion in the lower courts and to give meaningful effect to Wyeth’s statement that preemption exists where there is “clear evidence” that a manufacturer was unable to comply simultaneously with both federal and state law.
Alan E. Untereiner of
Robbins, Russell, Englert, Orseck, Untereiner & Sauber LLP served as co-counsel for the amici in this case.