Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

Madel sued the Department of Justice and Drug Enforcement Administration for a response to Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552, requests that sought information on oxycodone transactions in Georgia by five private companies. DEA withheld some documents as confidential commercial information. The district court granted summary judgment to DEA, finding it produced all non-exempt information. The court denied declaratory and injunctive relief and attorney fees. The Eighth Circuit reversed and remanded. Rejecting a claim that DEA did not justify withholding the five documents under FOIA Exemption 4, the court concluded that DEA showed that substantial competitive harm was likely. DEA did not make “barren assertions” that the documents were exempt, but linked each document to identifiable competitive harms. The court remanded for consideration of FOIA’s segregability requirement. DEA did not show “with reasonable specificity why documents withheld pursuant to a valid exemption cannot be further segregated.” Its Declaration does not address how disclosure of the data from, for example, 2007, leads to the proffered substantial competitive harms of a competitor “target[ing] specific markets” or “forecast[ing] potential business of new locations.” View "Madel v. Dep't of Justice" on Justia Law

Townsend worked as an Arkansas pharmaceutical sales representative for Bayer, selling Mirena, a contraceptive device. Townsend visited physicians, including Dr. Shrum. Townsend learned Shrum was importing from Canada a version of Mirena that was not FDA-approved, at half the cost of the approved version. Shrum had submitted Medicaid claims at the same rate as the approved version and bragged about $50,000 in extra profit. Townsend sought guidance from his superiors. Bayer told Townsend not get involved. Townsend called the Medicaid Fraud Hotline, although he feared losing his job. Shrum was charged with Medicaid fraud. Meanwhile, Bayer changed its method of reimbursing sales expenses. Not understanding the change, Townsend’s wife spent funds intended for those expenses, causing Townsend’s account to be closed temporarily. Although Townsend's account had been reactivated, Bayer fired him, claiming his closed account prevented him doing his job. Townsend sued, citing anti-retaliation provisions of the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. 3730(h).). A jury awarded Townsend back pay, doubled to $642,746, and $568,000 in emotional distress damages. The court denied front pay and ordered Bayer to reinstate Townsend. The Eighth Circuit affirmed on all issues except the emotional distress damage award and remanded to allow Townsend the option of accepting a remittitur of $300,000, or a new trial on emotional distress damages.View "Townsend v. Bayer HealthCare Pharm. Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, non-profit organizations representing the manufacturers and distributors of pharmaceutical products, filed suit challenging the Alameda County Safe Drug Disposal Ordinance, which requires that prescription drug manufacturers, who either sell, offer for sale, or distribute "Covered Drugs" in Alameda, operate and finance a "Product Stewardship Program." The court concluded that the Ordinance, both on its face and in effect, does not discriminate because it applies to all manufacturers that make their drugs available in Alameda County - without respect to the geographic location of the manufacturer; the Ordinance does not directly regulate interstate commerce where it does not control conduct beyond the boundaries of the county; under the balancing test in Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc., the court concluded that, without any evidence that the Ordinance will affect the interstate flow of goods, the Ordinance does not substantially burden interstate commerce; and therefore, the Ordinance does not violate the dormant Commerce Clause. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendants.View "PRMA v. County of Alameda" on Justia Law

In 2008, ReGen Biologics, manufacturer of the Collagen Scaffold, obtained FDA approval to market the device. After allegations that improper political pressure tainted the clearance process, the FDA conducted an internal investigation and concluded that some procedural irregularities had occurred during the agency's review of the device. Asserting its inherent reconsideration authority, the agency reevaluated the scaffold and concluded that it had erred in allowing the device to be sold. The FDA issued an order rescinding its clearance decision. ReGen immediately pulled the scaffold from the market and subsequently filed for bankruptcy. ReGen and its successor in interest, Ivy, filed suit challenging the FDA's decision to rescind and the district court granted summary judgment for the agency. The court reversed, concluding that the FDA did not follow the proper statutory procedure for reclassifying a device. Rescinding its determination had the effect of putting the device into Class III, and thus required completion of the extensive pre-market approval process before the scaffold could be marketed again. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded for further proceedings.View "Ivy Sports Medicine, LLC v. Sebelius, et al." on Justia Law

Relator filed a qui tam action under the False Claims Act (FCA), 31 U.S.C. 3729-3733, against Omnicare, alleging that defendants violated a series of FDA safety regulations requiring that penicillin and non-penicillin drugs be packaged in complete isolation from one another. The court concluded that the public disclosure bar did not divest the district court of jurisdiction over relator's FCA claims. The court concluded that once a new drug has been approved by the FDA and thus qualified for reimbursement under the Medicare and Medicaid statutes, the submission of a reimbursement request for that drug could not constitute a "false" claim under the FCA on the sole basis that the drug had been adulterated as a result of having been processed in violation of FDA safety regulations. The court affirmed the district court's grant of Omnicare's motion to dismiss, holding that relator's complaint failed to allege that defendants made a false statement or that they acted with the necessary scienter. The court also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying relator's request to file a third amended complaint. View "United States ex rel. Rostholder v. Omnicare, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, a group of prisoners, filed suit against the FDA for allowing state correctional departments to import sodium thiopental (thiopental), a misbranded and misapproved new drug used in lethal injection protocols, in violation of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), 21 U.S.C. 381(a), and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 706(2)(A). The court concluded that, because there were clear statutory guidelines for the agency to follow in exercising its enforcement powers, the FDA's compliance with section 381(a) was subject to judicial review under the standards of the APA. The court also concluded that the FDA's policy of admitting foreign manufactured thiopental destined for state correctional facilities were not in accordance with law because section 381(a) required the agency to sample and examine for violations of any drug offered for import that had been prepared in an unregistered facility. The court concluded, however, that the district court erred by failing to seek the joinder of the state governments whose possession and use of the thiopental at issue the court declared illegal. Accordingly, the order of the district court pertaining to the thiopental already in the possession of the states was vacated, but the underlying judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "Cook, et al. v. FDA, et al." on Justia Law

The Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act requires Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval before marketing any brand-name or generic drug in interstate commerce, 21 U.S.C. 355(a). The manufacturer of an approved drug is prohibited from making any major change to the "qualitative or quantitative formulation of the drug product, including active ingredients, or in the specifications provided in the approved application." Generic manufacturers are also prohibited from making any unilateral change to a drug’s label. In 2004, a patient was prescribed Clinoril, a brand-name nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) sulindac, for shoulder pain. Her pharmacist dispensed a generic form of sulindac manufactured by Mutual. The patient developed an acute case of toxic epidermal necrolysis and is severely disfigured, has physical disabilities, and is nearly blind. At the time of the prescription, sulindac’s label did not specifically refer to toxic epidermal necrolysis. By 2005, the FDA had recommended changing all NSAID labeling to contain a more explicit toxic epidermal necrolysis warning. A jury found Mutual liable on a design-defect claim and awarded the patient more than $21 million. The First Circuit affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed. State-law design-defect claims based on the adequacy of a drug’s warnings are preempted by federal law under a 2011 Supreme Court decision, PLIVA, Inc. v. Mensing. It is impossible for Mutual to comply with both its federal-law duty not to alter sulindac’s label or composition and its state-law duty to either strengthen the warnings on the label or change sulindac’s design. Redesign was not possible because the FDCA requires a generic drug to have the same active ingredients, route of administration, dosage form, strength, and labeling as its brand-name drug equivalent and, due to sulindac’s simple composition, the drug is chemically incapable of being redesigned. Mutual could only ameliorate sulindac’s "risk-utility" profile, therefore, by strengthening its warnings, an action forbidden by federal law. View "Mut. Pharma. Co. v. Bartlett" on Justia Law

Plaintiff and others sought and received LASIK eye surgery with a Nidek EC-5000 Excimer Laser System ("Laser") to correct farsightedness. Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and a class of similarly situated individuals, claimed that, had they known that the FDA had not approved the Laser for this use, they would not have consented to the surgeries. The court held that the complaint did not state a claim under the California Protection of Human Subjects in Medical Experimentation Act, Cal. Health & Saf. Code 24171 et seq., because the surgeries were not "medical experiments" subject to the protection of the Act. Plaintiff did not have standing to sue for injunctive relief under the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), Cal. Civ. Code 1750 et seq., and his other substantive claim was preempted by the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), 21 U.S.C. 301 et seq. Plaintiff's common-law fraud by omission claim was expressly preempted by the preemption provision in the Medical Device Amendments. Even if it were not, it was impliedly preempted because it amounted to an attempt to privately enforce the FDCA. Accordingly, the court affirmed the dismissal of the complaint. View "Perez, et al v. Nidek Co., Ltd., et al" on Justia Law

This case stemmed from Cytori's application to the FDA to market two new medical devices, the Celution 700 and the StemSource 900. Two devices that use adipose tissue as a source of stem cells that could later be used in lab analysis or, potentially, in regenerative medicine. The FDA concluded that the Celution and the StemSource were not substantially similar to devices on the market that extract stem cells from blood or bone marrow. Thus, the FDA ruled that Cytori must go through an extensive premarket approval process for new medical devices, rather than go through the streamlined premarket notification process for new devices that would be substantially equivalent to another device already on the market. Cytori appealed. As a preliminary matter, the court concluded that it was the proper forum for direct review of the FDA's substantial equivalence determination. On the merits, the court concluded that the FDA reasonably concluded and reasonably explained, for purposes of the Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. 500 et seq., that the Celution and StemSource did not meet either the "intended use" requirement or the "technological characteristics" requirement for a substantial equivalence determination. View "Cytori Therapeutics, Inc. v. FDA" on Justia Law

The DEA, under the authority of the Controlled Substances Act of 1970, 21 U.S.C. 812(b)(1)(B), classified marijuana as a Schedule I drug, the most restricted drug classification under the Act. Petitioners challenged the DEA's denial of its petition to initiate proceedings to reschedule marijuana as a Schedule III, IV, or V drug. The principal issue on appeal was whether the DEA's decision was arbitrary and capricious. First, the court denied the Government's jurisdictional challenge because the court found that at least one of the named petitioners had standing to challenge the agency's action. On the merits, the court held that the DEA's denial of the rescheduling petition survived review under the deferential arbitrary and capricious standard where the petition asked the DEA to reclassify marijuana, which, under the terms of the Act, required a "currently accepted medical use." A "currently accepted medical use" required, inter alia, "adequate and well-controlled studies proving efficacy." The court deferred to the agency's interpretation of these regulations and found that substantial evidence supported the agency's determination that such studies did not exist. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "Americans for Safe Access, et al v. DEA" on Justia Law