Appellate Law NJ Blog
  • Home
  • Bruce Greenberg

Big Pharma Wins in Another Supreme Court Accutane Decision

Posted by Bruce D. Greenberg on Oct 4, 2018 in Judges, Standards of review, Statutory interpretation, Summary judgment, Supreme Court of New Jersey | 0 comments

In re Accutane Litigation, 235 N.J. 229 (2018).  [Disclosure:  I argued this appeal, together with co-counsel, on behalf of the plaintiffs.  The opinions expressed in this post are mine alone, and are not attributable to or necessarily reflective of the views of other counsel for plaintiffs in the matter.]  Two months after the Supreme Court barred the experts for plaintiffs in this Multi-County Litigation who claimed that Accutane caused their Crohn’s Disease, striking the death knell for several thousand such cases, the Court yesterday doomed 532 more cases, granting summary judgment to defendants in all of them.

In an opinion by Justice Albin that applied de novo review to the legal issues presented, the Court ruled that plaintiffs did not sufficiently demonstrate that defendants’ warnings about Accutane after 2002 regarding inflammatory bowel disease were inadequate.  The Court applied New Jersey’s Product Liability Act, N.J.S.A. 2A:58C-4 (“NJPLA”), to all the cases, even those in which the plaintiffs lived, were prescribed and took Accutane, and were injured outside of New Jersey, and held that plaintiffs’ evidence did not rise to the level that the NJPLA requires in order to rebut its presumption of labeling adequacy where the FDA has approved the labeling.

The decision to apply the NJPLA to plaintiffs from all states was based on the idea, stated in Ginsberg v. Quest Diagnostics, Inc., 227 N.J. 7 (2016), that where there are many, potentially conflicting state laws at issue, it may be more efficient and manageable to apply one state’s law to everyone.  The laws of the 45 states from which the relevant universe of plaintiffs hailed were not uniform, and it would have been an “arduous and burdensome task” to apply the laws of each state, as t had done.  In the circumstances, the factors that comprise the “most significant relationship” test that governs choice of law did not lead to a clear result.  But once the Court applied “overarching principles” such as the needs of the interstate system, the need for certainty, predictability, and uniformity of result, and ease of determination and application of the law to be applied, the Court concluded that the NJPLA should govern globally.

Justice Albin then proceeded to examine plaintiffs’ evidence in support of their contention that they had overcome the NJLPA’s presumption of labeling adequacy.  He stated that the presumption of labeling adequacy can be rebutted only by clear and convincing evidence.  That is a standard “protective of responsible drug manufacturers,” which the Court found was the intent of the Legislature in adopting the NJPLA.  Analyzing plaintiffs’ proofs one by one, the Court concluded that they did not rise to the required level.

While recognizing that, in this summary judgment context, the evidentiary record needed to be viewed most favorably to plaintiffs, the Court minimized plaintiffs’ evidence in various ways.  Thus, the Court characterized plaintiffs’ proofs as “isolated examples … exhumed from the volumes of evidence” in the overall record.  But gold nuggets are no less golden merely because they are surrounded by other less than valuable materials.  The Court’s view (to shift to a different metaphor) did not fully take account of plaintiffs’  construction of a mosaic of evidence in their favor.

This was another bitter pill for Accutane plaintiffs to swallow.  But the NJPLA’s rebuttable presumption has been difficult to overcome, and this case turned out to be no different.

 

 

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

About the Author

Bruce D. Greenberg, a partner of Lite DePalma Greenberg & Afanador, LLC, has more than 35 years of appellate experience.  He has argued dozens of cases in New Jersey’s Appellate Division, and he has handled oral arguments in the Supreme Court of New Jersey and the Third Circuit Court of Appeals as well.  Mr. Greenberg’s appellate cases have ranged from . . more

 

Subscribe

  • reader reader
  • Subscribe to Appellate Law NJ Blog by Email

Archives

Links

  • An Appeal to Reason – California Appellate blog
  • Class Action Blawg
  • De Novo- Virginia Appellate Law blog
  • Florida Appellate Review
  • How Appealing
  • Maine Appeals Blog
  • New York Appellate Law blog
  • NJ Judiciary
  • On Brief – Iowa Appellate Law Blog
  • Third Circuit Blog
  • Third Circuit Court of Appeals

Categories

  • Administrative agency actions
  • Administrative matters
  • Appellate Division
  • Attorneys fees
  • Case management
  • Chancery issues
  • Class actions
  • Constitutional law
  • Consumer protection
  • Contract interpretation
  • Criminal law
  • Discovery
  • Effect of decisions by other courts
  • Judges
  • Jury issues
  • Municipal land use
  • Notable opinion writing
  • Pleadings
  • Practice Pointers
  • Standards of review
  • Statutory interpretation
  • Summary judgment
  • Supreme Court of New Jersey
  • Third Circuit Court of Appeals
  • Uncategorized
  • United States Supreme Court

Tags

Administrative agency actions Appendix Arbitration Briefs Chief Justice Stuart Rabner Court Rules Family Part interlocutory vs. final decisions Judge Allison Accurso Judge Anthony Parrillo Judge Carmen Alvarez Judge Carmen Messano Judge Clarkson Fisher Judge D. Brooks Smith Judge Douglas Fasciale Judge Ellen Koblitz Judge Heidi Willis Currier Judge Jack Sabatino Judge Jose Fuentes Judge Julio Fuentes Judge Marianne Espinosa Judge Marie Lihotz Judge Mary Catherine Cuff Judge Mitchel Ostrer Judge Patty Shwartz Judge Stephen Skillman Judge Susan Reisner Judge Thomas Ambro Judge Thomas Hardiman Judge Victor Ashrafi Justice Anne Patterson Justice Barry Albin Justice Faustino Fernandez-Vina Justice Helen Hoens Justice Jaynee LaVecchia Justice Lee Solomon Justice Roberto Rivera-Soto Justice Walter Timpone Law of the case Makeup of court Notice of appeal Prerogative writ appeals Standing Statute of limitations Waiver

Designed by Elegant Themes | Powered by Wordpress