Following up on the American Association for Justice’s campaign to get the word out about complete preemption:
Yesterday the U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform issued a report saying FDA career staff objected to a change in preemption rules, even saying the central factual justifications for the agency’s new positions were false. The report highlights internal FDA documents which show high-ranking career officials repeatedly warning about the dangers of not allowing drug companies to add additional warnings to their labels without FDA approval. Prior to this the FDA had asserted through a rule on drug and device labeling that manufacturers should not be held accountable for failing to update their label with additional risks, if the original label was approved by the FDA.
The report cites Dr. John Jenkins, the highest official in FDA’s new drug review process, writing:
[M]uch of the argument for why we are proposing to invoke preemption seems to be based on the false assumption that the FDA approved labeling is fully accurate and up-to-date in a real time basis. We know that such an assumption is false.”
Prior to the rule being issued one FDA career official asserted that the rule “is not as it purports to be, consistent with the agency’s role in protecting the public health…”
A copy of the report can be found at http://oversight.house.gov/
Steve is the Managing Shareholder of Steven J. Klearman & Associates, a civil litigation law firm located in Reno, Nevada. He practices primarily in the areas of civil litigation and injury law, and has authored one of the definitive guides to Nevada civil law that is widely used by Nevada judges and attorneys, his book entitled Elements of Nevada Legal Theories.