Federal District Court Judge Rules That Brand Name Manufacturer Can Be Found Negligent For Warning Label On Generic Drug
Recently, a federal district court in Illinois ruled that GlaxoSmithKline could face liability for the suicide of a partner from Reed Smith, even though the partner took a generic version of the company's product, Paxil, instead of the named brand. This is significant, as for a long time, it has been an established belief that brand name manufacturers could not be sued for the flaws in the generic versions. This was the first case of its kind to be considered in the Seventh Circuit.
Back in 2010, six days after he began taking paroxetine hydrochloride for anxiety and depression, Stewart Dolin committed suicide. Dolin's wife, Wendy, then sued GlaxoSmithKlein and the manufacturer of the generic drug, Mylan Inc., arguing that they failed to warn adult users that the drug increased the risk of suicidal behavior. The Illinois district court judge, James Zagel, dismissed part of the lawsuit on the grounds that GlaxoSmithKlein could not be sued for product liability. However, he permitted the rest of the lawsuit to go forward on the issue of whether GlaxoSmithKlein was negligent.
The judge noted that negligence was still available due to a question of whether the warning label on the generic Paxil contained sufficient information highlighting the drug's dangers. His ruling deviated from nearly 90 other decisions on this subject, which found that the brand name manufacturers could not be held responsible for the generic's defects under any circumstances, even in the case of negligence. Only a handful of courts in California, Alabama, and Vermont had determined otherwise.