reported the presence of PFAS in the supply.
1. Rulings On Mass Tort Motions At The Pleading Stage Mass torts often involve pharmaceuticals and medical devices. One of the first major thresholds for plaintiffs to cross is overcoming a preemption argument. Preemption arguments arise when there is a difference between the requirements of state and federal law. The supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution establishes that federal law is the supreme law of the land, and when a federal and state law conflict, federal law usually wins the day. Preemption can be classified as follows: Express Preemption: This occurs when federal law explicitly states that it preempts any state law in a particular area. There is often an express preemption provision found in the statute itself or sometimes is contained in the corresponding regulations. Implied Preemption: While sometimes federal law does not provide for express preemption, the vastness of a law or regulations implies that it preempts state law due to its comprehensive nature. There are two sub-categories of implied preemption, including: (1) Field Preemption, which occurs because a federal law is so comprehensive that it occupies the entire field and thus the states have no room for regulation, and (2) Conflict Preemption, which occurs when it is impossible to comply with both state and federal law. The Food & Drug Administration, for example, plays a crucial role in drug regulation, and understanding preemption is important for litigators because oftentimes, pharmaceutical litigation typically involves both federal and state law claims. As a general matter, courts often analyze the federal law or regulations compared with the state law or regulations, and make an assessment as to whether or not state law or regulations are issues that fall into one of the preemption categories discussed above. Preemption is but one of the many threshold issues decided at the pleading stage. Court in 2023 adjudicated various cases in this area. For example, in the litigation captioned In Re Philips Recalled CPAP, Bi-Level PAP, & Mechanic Ventilator Products Liability Litigation , 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 193563 (W.D. Penn. Sept. 28, 2023), the plaintiffs filed an amended master long form complaint alleging that the defendants’ recalled CPAP machines contained PE-PUR foam that may break down and be inhaled or ingested and may cause damage to organs, including cancer, due to the presence of volatile organic compounds. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss based on pleading deficiencies, standing, preemption, the “learned intermediary doctrine, and claims involving breach of warranty, negligent manufacturing, strict liability, and battery claims. The defendants argued the master long form complaint contained no specific facts about any specific plaintiffs or specific injuries. The master long form complaint merely alleged that the plaintiffs using the defendants’ products experienced exposure to toxins. The special master, being granted authority to decide the motion, noted that absent pleading an injury, the plaintiffs still established standing at this stage of the case because exposure to toxins satisfies the injury-in-fact requirement. In addition, the defendants argued that the plaintiffs’ state law negligence claims, warranty, fraud, violations of consumer protections laws, and unjust enrichment claims were impliedly preempted by federal law. The defendants contended these claims arose from “alleged fraud on-the-FDA and allege non-compliance with the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and corresponding regulations. Id. at *94. The court noted that even though the plaintiffs’ allegations and information cited in the complaint were derived from FDA-related sources, the claims themselves did not rest on violations of federal law, but rather on what the defendants knew and their lack of action. Id. at *98. The defendants also argued that the negligence claim, which alleged a negligent recall, should be dismissed under the primary jurisdiction doctrine. The plaintiffs argued that the doctrine
15
© Duane Morris LLP 2024
Duane Morris Product Liability And Mass Torts Class Action Review – 2024
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online