• Kimberly A. Kralowec
    The Kralowec Law Group
    44 Montgomery Street,
    Suite 1210
    San Francisco, CA 94104
    Tel: (415) 546-6800
    Fax: (415) 546-6801

October 2015

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31

« New Seventh Circuit class certification decision: Thorogood v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. | Main | Happy Election Day! »

Tuesday, November 04, 2008


Stephen Dolle

I agree with the conclusions published in that the Court will likely rule narrowly in favor of Wyeth in this case. It will no doubt leave open the door for subsequent challenges to test the boundaries of "FDA and mfr" drug labeling, where there will someday be a preemption finding as was seen in Riegel v Medtronic.

I can't help but wonder how 17200 claims could be used against medical manufacturers for false and misleading marketing activities. It could facilitate a simple assessment of fraud in the marketing of a product, without reliance on extensive expert testimony, as is needed in products liability and negligence, now preempted when the manufacturer obtains a PMA (Riegel v. Medtronic) from the FDA.

I am curious as to other's thoughts on the above.

The comments to this entry are closed.

2015 Supreme Court Calendar



  • Nothing in this blog constitutes legal advice. If you need legal advice, consult an attorney in your jurisdiction. To read this blog's complete disclaimer, click here.

  • The UCL Practitioner
    © 2003-2015
    by Kimberly A. Kralowec
    All rights reserved.

  • Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner

  • Header design by Webmotion
    Photos by Jack Gescheidt
    Powered by TypePad