Conte v. Wyeth, Inc.
California Court of Appeal
85 Cal. Rptr. 3d 299 (2008)
- Written by Mary Phelan D'Isa, JD
Facts
Conte (plaintiff) a gastroesophageal-reflux disease patient sued Wyeth, Inc., the name-brand manufacturer of Reglan (metoclopramide) and its generic manufacturers when she developed a debilitating and incurable neurological disorder, tardive dyskinesia, after taking generic metoclopramide for almost four years. Conte alleged that Wyeth made intentional or negligent misrepresentations about the safety of metoclopramide, the risks of long-term use, and the likelihood of serious effects. Conte specifically alleged that Wyeth knew or should have known of a widespread tendency among physicians to misprescribe Reglan and generic metoclopramide for periods of 12 months or longer, despite its only being approved for 12 weeks of use, because the drugs’ labeling substantially understated the risks of serious side effects from extended use. Conte alleged that Wyeth was liable under a misrepresentation theory because a name-brand drug manufacturer that disseminates information about its product owes a duty of care to ensure the information’s accuracy to any doctor who prescribes the drug in reasonable reliance on that information—even if the patient ends up taking the generic equivalent of the name-brand drug. The district court granted summary judgment for Wyeth and the generic-drug manufacturers, and Conte appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Siggins, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 833,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
