Bell v. Lollar
Indiana Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
VAIDIK, Judge.
Case Summary
Purepac Pharmaceutical Company (Purepac) appeals the trial court’s denial of its motion for summary judgment. Specifically, Purepac contends that Hirshel Lol-lar’s state law claim for failure to warn about the risk of liver damage from combining acetaminophen and alcohol is preempted by federal law governing the labeling of drugs. Because the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) regulations governing the labeling of drugs are minimum standards that do not preempt state law, we affirm the trial court’s denial of summary judgment.
Facts and Procedural History
The…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Medtronic, Inc. v. LohrSupreme Court of the United States · 1996
- Hillsborough County v. Automated Medical Laboratories, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Freidline v. Shelby Insurance Co.Indiana Supreme Court · 2002
- Savina v. Sterling Drug, Inc.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1990
- prod.liab.rep.(cch)p 10,997 Katie Laurel Wells v. Ortho Pharmaceutical CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1986
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- McDarby v. Merck & Co., Inc.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 2008
- Levine v. WyethSupreme Court of Vermont · 2008
- Bartlett v. MUTUAL PHARMACEUTICAL CO., INC.District Court, D. New Hampshire · 2009
- Rowe v. Hoffmann-La Roche Inc.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 2006
- HOUSING AUT. OF CITY OF SOUTH BEND v. GradyIndiana Court of Appeals · 2004
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.