Deference to Agency Decisions: Lessons from Recent Pharmaceutical Pre-emption Decisions

One question that has been raised in pre-emption decisions is the degree of deference to be shown an agency's explicit statement that it intends certain failure-to-warn claims to be pre-empted. For example, in the pharmaceutical arena, the Food and Drug Administration ('FDA') through the Department of Justice ('DOJ') filed amicus briefs in several lawsuits to reiterate its position on pre-emption of state law tort claims. In these briefs, the United States stressed that in the context of warnings, 'more is not always better.' <i>Amicus</i> Brief for the United States, <i>Kallas v. Pfizer</i>, No. 04-00998 (D. Utah Sept. 29, 2005) at 28. The FDA's regulation of prescription drugs ensures each drug's optimal use by requiring inclusion of only scientifically substantiated warnings. <i>Id.</i> Plaintiffs' failure-to-warn claims therefore 'stand as an obstacle' to the FDA's accomplishment of its congressionally mandated purpose of ensuring the public health and are therefore pre-empted. <i>See Id.</i> The FDA has also stated its position on pre-emption in the preamble to its Rulemaking for Labeling requirement, which became effective on June 30, 2006. <i>See</i> 21 C.F.R. '10.85(d)(1) (2006).

23 minute read October 30, 2006 at 01:50 PM

By

Vivian M. Quinn and Elizabeth A. Brophy