WASHINGTON — Several Supreme Court justices seemed to side with the drug industry in a case that examined a popular defense that companies use to ward off patient lawsuits.

They heard oral arguments Monday in a case that has high stakes for pharmaceutical companies, which often wriggle out of patient lawsuits by arguing that the Food and Drug Administration limits their ability to warn patients about the side effects of their medicines, therefore absolving them of responsibility to do anything other than exactly what the FDA mandates. Patients, on the other hand, want drug makers to be more explicit about the potential risks of their medicines and argue that state law supports them.

Unlock this article by subscribing to STAT Plus and enjoy your first 30 days free!

GET STARTED

What is it?

STAT Plus is a premium subscription that delivers daily market-moving biopharma coverage and in-depth science reporting from a team with decades of industry experience.

What's included?

  • Authoritative biopharma coverage and analysis, interviews with industry pioneers, policy analysis, and first looks at cutting edge laboratories and early stage research
  • Subscriber-only networking events and panel discussions across the country
  • Monthly subscriber-only live chats with our reporters and experts in the field
  • Discounted tickets to industry events and early-bird access to industry reports

Leave a Comment

Please enter your name.
Please enter a comment.

  • It was really clear in the Supreme Court Hearing, that Merck was using deceptive wording. The only reason they submistted the “Stress Fracture” wording was to confuse patients. Of course some of these “Upper Trochanter Fractures” cause death in certian patients. This case will prove that the criminals are winning. Americans need to be very scared.

Sign up for our Daily Recap newsletter

A roundup of STAT’s top stories of the day in science and medicine

Privacy Policy