Mutual Pharmaceutical Co. v. Bartlett
United States Supreme Court
570 U.S. 472 (2013)
- Written by Jamie Milne, JD
Facts
Karen Bartlett (plaintiff) was prescribed Clinoril, the brand-name version of sulindac, for pain. Her pharmacist dispensed a generic version of sulindac manufactured by Mutual Pharmaceutical Co. (Mutual) (defendant). The drug caused toxic epidermal necrolysis, leaving Bartlett disfigured, almost blind, and physically disabled. Bartlett sued Mutual, asserting a New Hampshire design-defect claim premised on the drug’s dangerousness and the label’s failure to warn of toxic epidermal necrolysis. The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) prevented all drug manufacturers from making major changes to drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and prohibited generic manufacturers from making changes to a drug’s label. The label for Clinoril did not warn of toxic epidermal necrolysis. Mutual argued that it could not be liable under state law because federal law prevented Mutual from altering the drug’s design or from adding warnings to its labels. The district court held in Bartlett’s favor, awarding substantial damages. The court of appeals affirmed. Mutual appealed to the Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Alito, J.)
Dissent (Breyer, J.)
Dissent (Sotomayor, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 826,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 991 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.
