Mass tort paperwork with gavel | Frederick Zantac mass tort lawyer

Generic Ranitidine Products and Preemption

Users of Zantac, generic ranitidine products, and a combination of brand-name Zantac and generic versions have filed approximately 1,700 lawsuits to date against drug manufacturers. These multi-district litigation (MDL) cases have been consolidated for discovery in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, where Judge Robin L. Rosenberg, in July 2021, rejected suits against generic ranitidine manufacturers, citing the argument of preemption. Preemption occurs when one law overrides or cancels out another. The preemption can be:

  • Express: A law contains preemptive language.
  • Implied: A court finds one law preemptive of another even though there is no express preemption.

The Zantac decision is one of implied preemption. Federal law has nearly unlimited authority to preempt state law in America. State laws usually require drug manufacturers to re-name, re-label, or re-design dangerous or defective drugs to warn users of the known dangers associated with the products. Federal laws, however, do not permit drug manufacturers to do so. FDA regulations mandate that a generic drug have the same warning label that the brand-name product has.

For this reason, the South Florida district court ruled that makers of generic ranitidine did not have to stop selling their products or warn users of potential dangers as state law required because doing so would be in violation of Federal law. Lawsuits based on the generic ranitidine manufacturers’ alleged negligent failure to warn their users were thus thrown out. The result is that manufacturers and marketers of the generic drug avoided liability for providing a cancer-causing medication to the public.

Innovator Liability

Innovator liability is an argument to hold a brand-name drug manufacturer liable for injuries allegedly caused by the generic drug. The logic behind this argument is that the generic version would never have existed but for the development and manufacture of the original medication.

Innovator liability arguments were raised in various states by plaintiffs in the Zantac litigation but were also rejected at the Federal level by Judge Rosenberg, who maintained innovator liability in this case was a valid argument only in California and Massachusetts.

Lawsuits Against Brand-Name Zantac Unaffected

Although suits against makers of generic ranitidine were thrown out, suits filed by users of brand-name Zantac and by users who took both Zantac and generic ranitidine are unaffected. Plaintiffs with actions for medical expenses, pain and suffering, lost wages/earning potential, and/or wrongful death may go forward with their claims against Zantac’s:

  • Manufacturers
  • Retailers
  • Wholesalers
  • Pharmacies
  • Re-packagers

Judge Rosenberg is expected to set early trial dates in 2022 for a sampling of Zantac cases involving the most common types of cancer suffered by plaintiffs. The results of these early trials will not necessarily set binding precedents for other cases, but the decisions reached and the settlements awarded could serve as benchmarks that would stimulate negotiations for out-of-court settlements in other Zantac cases. Such settlements could prevent large numbers of individual Zantac trials from dragging on for years to come.

Were You Diagnosed With Cancer After Using Zantac?

If you’ve been diagnosed with one of the listed cancers after using any form of Zantac (capsules, tablets, syrup, or injections) for at least 30 days, consulting the experienced mass tort lawyers at The Poole Law Group is your first step towards justice and fair compensation for your damages. Please contact us online, or call our Hagerstown office to schedule a free consultation and get more information about Zantac litigation.

 

D. Bruce Poole
Connect with me
Maryland Personal Injury Attorney dedicated to truck and auto accident cases
Comments are closed.