For about a year and a half, I have been following the developments in Mutual Pharmaceutical v. Bartlett, the third case on preemption in the context of a claim for damages caused by a prescription drug. (See my posts and links here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. The difference in this case was that the claim was not based on the warning on the product but on a claim of defective design.
Last Monday, the Court finally decided the case and, in a 5-4 decision, the majority saw the case as essentially a replay of last year’s decision in PLIVA, Inc. v. Mensing: All five of the Justices in the PLIVA majority held for the manufacturer here, and the four PLIVA dissenters would have held for the plaintiff.
For a copy of the opinion go here. For a good summary of the ruling, go here. For more information, including links to the lower court opinion and the documents filed in the case, go here.