Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Personal Injury Law Blogs -> Drug and Device Law

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Personal Injury Law

: Drug and Device Law

Can We Please Sound The Death Knell On Conte?

By James M. Beck and Mark Herrmann

We love being the bearers of glad tidings, especially when those glad tidings are cases rejecting the whacky theory espoused by Conte v. Wyeth, Inc., 85 Cal. Rptr.3d 299 (Cal. App. 2008) -- i.e., that a brand-name manufacturer is possibly liable even where the manufacturer did not make the (generic) version of the product that allegedly injured the plaintiff. In fact, we hate Conte so much that we have a scorecard devoted to it. And now, we are happy to report that the scales have tipped even further against Conte.

We can't provide detailed commentary because of our firm's involvement in the Reglan/metoclopramide litigation, but two more recent cases have rejected the Conte "innovator liability" theory. In Craig v. Pfizer, Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64487 (W.D. La. May 26, 2010), and Mosley v. Wyeth, Inc., ___ F. Supp.2d ___, 2010 WL 2594000 (S.D. Ala. June 28, 2010), the courts rejected a host of warranty, fraud, and statutory claims brought against brand-name manufacturers of Reglan/metoclopramide. We've updated the scorecard to add these cases to the anti-Conte arsenal.

Full post as published by Drug and Device Law on July 07, 2010 (boomark / email).