Call Us: 1.800.873.5297


Generic Prescription Drug Injuries

If you take prescription drugs, the chances are that you are not using a name-brand drug, but are using a generic equivalent. In fact, current estimates say that seven out of 10 prescriptions filled in the United States are filled using generic drugs. Generic drug manufacturers rush in when a drug’s patent expires, selling a low-cost, but supposedly equivalent drug alternative. Generic drug manufacturers have claimed that they are immune to drug injury lawsuits, but a recent finding by a US District Court of Appeals extends legal action for drug injuries to people who use generic equivalents of prescription drugs.

If you have been injured by a generic prescription drug, you have legal rights. To learn more about those legal rights, please contact the pharmaceutical litigation lawyers at Schlichter, Bogard & Denton today.

Generic Reglan Lawsuit

A woman went to her doctor complaining of chronic heartburn and was prescribedReglan, generically known as metoclopramide. Her prescription continued to be reauthorized and refilled for four years. The woman developed tardive dyskinesia, a disorder that causes lack of muscle-control including involuntary muscle movements, which she claims is related to her long-term ingestion of Reglan. In response, she filed a lawsuit claiming that the drug’s manufacturers had failed to warn her about the risk of neurological disorder associated with long-term use of metoclopramide. The lawsuit named the drug’s original patent-holder, Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, and two generic manufacturers. Lawsuits against Wyeth and another generic manufacturer were dismissed when it was found that the woman’s pharmacy had only filled the prescription with a generic form of the drug, manufactured by Actavis.

Actavis attempted to have the lawsuit against it dismissed because, it claimed, it did not have the right to alter its label to include warnings that were not included in the label of the name-brand version of the prescription drug.

Generic Drugs: A Different Standard

In 1984, Congress passed amendments to the Food, Drugs, and Cosmetics Act to create a quicker method for the approval of generic drugs. Although the FDA approval process for new drugs remained the same, generic alternatives were allowed to be marketed after going through an abbreviated new drug application (ANDA) procedure. ANDA prescription drugs had to be the same as an already-marketed name-brand drug in terms of active ingredients, dosage, and most other characteristics. They didn’t have to do their own clinical trials, but had to carry labeling that “is the same as the labeling approved” for the name-brand drug.

Actavis argued that because its label had to be the same as the name-brand drug’s label, it couldn’t change its label without being charged with “misbranding” its drug.

The Court Gives Remedy to Generic Prescription Drug Users

However, the US Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, did not accept Actavis’ argument. It said that generic manufacturers have as much a duty to be pro-active in identifying and warning about potential drug dangers as name-brand manufacturers. It said that the regulations about the label for generic and name-brand labels being identical only applied to the ANDA process, and that once a generic prescription drug was approved, its label could deviate significantly from that of its name-brand equivalent.

Instead, the Fifth Circuit Court reiterated the central tenet of the Supreme Court’s finding in Wyeth v. Levine (March 4, 2009), ” it has remained a central premise of federal drug regulation that the manufacturer bears responsibility for the content of its label at all times. It is charged both with crafting an adequate label and with ensuring that its warnings remain adequate as long as the drug is on the market.” The Fifth Circuit Court added in its own words, “the regulatory framework makes plain that manufacturers—name brand and generic alike—must act to warn customers when they learn that they may be marketing an unsafe drug.” Generic manufacturers are required to perform the same postmarket recordkeeping requirements and must report adverse events just like name brand manufacturers. As far as any possibility of misbranding, the Fifth Circuit Court said labeling changes would only be considered misbranding if they were inaccurate or not based on scientific evidence.

In short, the Fifth Circuit Court opinion says it doesn’t matter whether you used a name-brand or generic prescription drug, the manufacturer can still be held responsible if it knew of—and failed to warn about—a risk of serious injury.

If you have been injured by a dangerous prescription drug, it doesn’t matter to us whether you were taking a name-brand or generic version. The prescription drug liability lawyers at Schlichter, Bogard & Denton stand ready to help you. Please call or email us today for a free initial consultation.

000-017   000-080   000-089   000-104   000-105   000-106   070-461   100-101   100-105  , 100-105  , 101   101-400   102-400   1V0-601   1Y0-201   1Z0-051   1Z0-060   1Z0-061   1Z0-144   1z0-434   1Z0-803   1Z0-804   1z0-808   200-101   200-120   200-125  , 200-125  , 200-310   200-355   210-060   210-065   210-260   220-801   220-802   220-901   220-902   2V0-620   2V0-621   2V0-621D   300-070   300-075   300-101   300-115   300-135   3002   300-206   300-208   300-209   300-320   350-001   350-018   350-029   350-030   350-050   350-060   350-080   352-001   400-051   400-101   400-201   500-260   640-692   640-911   640-916   642-732   642-999   700-501   70-177   70-178   70-243   70-246   70-270   70-346   70-347   70-410   70-411   70-412   70-413   70-417   70-461   70-462   70-463   70-480   70-483   70-486   70-487   70-488   70-532   70-533   70-534   70-980   74-678   810-403   9A0-385   9L0-012   9L0-066   ADM-201   AWS-SYSOPS   C_TFIN52_66   c2010-652   c2010-657   CAP   CAS-002   CCA-500   CISM   CISSP   CRISC   EX200   EX300   HP0-S42   ICBB   ICGB   ITILFND   JK0-022   JN0-102   JN0-360   LX0-103   LX0-104   M70-101   MB2-704   MB2-707   MB5-705   MB6-703   N10-006   NS0-157   NSE4   OG0-091   OG0-093   PEGACPBA71V1   PMP   PR000041   SSCP   SY0-401   VCP550  

Legal Disclaimer & Privacy Policy
This web site is designed for general information only. The information presented should not be construed as legal advice and does not form the basis for an attorney/client relationship.

The choice of a lawyer is an important decision and should not be based solely on advertisements.
This web site is not intended to be advertising, and Schlichter Bogard & Denton LLP does not desire to represent anyone desiring representation based upon viewing this web site in a jurisdiction where this web site fails to comply with all laws and ethical rules of that jurisdiction. Materials on this web site may only be reproduced in their entirety (without modification) for the individual reader's personal and/or educational use and must include this notice.

We will not disclose, sell, or rent any of your identifiable personal information to any third party, unless approved by you, or required by law.