Birth Injury

Court Discusses Potential Scope of Liability Against Brand-Name Drug Manufacturer in Case Involving Generic Medication

January 15, 2018 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Under Maryland product liability law, the manufacturer of a product has a duty to ensure that the product does not present any unreasonable risk of harm to the consumer when the product is used for its intended purpose. Additionally, product liability law also generally applies a blanket of strict liability over all parties in the product’s chain of distribution. This means that any party in the chain of distribution may be liable for a plaintiff’s injuries caused by the product without a showing that the party was negligent.

When discussing the liability of a pharmaceutical manufacturer that allegedly created a dangerous drug, some specific rules apply. For example, in a recent case, the court discusses whether a brand-name manufacturer can be potentially liable in a case involving a plaintiff’s injuries that arose after consumption of a bioequivalent generic medication. Ultimately, the court concluded that the brand-name manufacturer could be held liable under the state’s product liability laws, and it dismissed the defendant manufacturer’s motion for summary judgment.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiffs were two children born with serious developmental delays by the time they turned three, and they were later diagnosed with autism by the age of five. During delivery, the plaintiffs’ mother was given the generic equivalent of the medication Brethine to suppress premature delivery. The plaintiffs were born full-term but later experienced what they claim to be the side effects of the medication.

Court Prevents Plaintiff’s Expert from Testifying in Case Against Drug Manufacturer

July 3, 2017 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Earlier this month, a federal appellate court issued a written opinion in a product liability case brought against the manufacturer of Zoloft, alleging that the medication causes birth defects. The court’s decision reviewed a lower court’s decision to prevent the plaintiffs’ expert witness from testifying. Ultimately, the court concluded that the lower court was proper to not allow the expert’s testimony.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiffs were a class of people who collectively claimed that the medication Zoloft caused birth defects when taken early in a pregnancy. In order to establish their claim, the plaintiffs planned on presenting several witnesses to show that the ingestion of Zoloft actually caused the birth defects in their children. However, the court prevented one of the key witnesses from testifying, based on the novel method the expert used in arriving at her conclusion.

The plaintiffs then tried calling another witness in place of the one who was prevented from testifying. The drug manufacturer objected to this witness as well, and the court conducted a hearing to determine whether the expert’s testimony would be admissible.

$3 Million Verdict Upheld in Topamax Birth Injury Lawsuit

June 8, 2016 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Earlier this month, a federal appellate court issued an opinion upholding a lower court’s verdict in favor of a mother whose child was born with a cleft palate and lip. According to one news source covering the case, the young girl suffers from hearing loss and speech problems, and she has undergone approximately 14 surgeries to correct the condition. The plaintiffs claim that the girl has also been subject to teasing and bullying as a result of her appearance and speech.

The case was brought against a subsidiary of a drug manufacturing giant, Johnson & Johnson, and it alleged that the company failed to warn doctors that pregnant patients may experience a heightened chance of birth defects if they take Topamax during the first trimester of pregnancy.

A Drug Manufacturer’s Duty to the Public

In general, manufacturers of over-the-counter and prescription drugs have a duty to warn people who may take a drug of any potential serious side effects. Of course, not every side effect of a medication is known at the time of manufacture, so only those potential complications that are known about must be disclosed. However, if a company fails to warn patients or prescribing physicians of potential dangers associated with the medication, the manufacturer may be held liable for injuries caused as a result.