Rheinfrank v. Abbott Labs., Inc.

17 Citing cases

  1. Swanson v. Abbott Labs.

    Case No. 2:14-cv-1052 (S.D. Ohio Nov. 28, 2017)

    "Under Ohio statutory law, a manufacturer is subject to liability for compensatory damages based on a product liability claim if the Plaintiffs prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the label was defective due to inadequate warning or instruction and the defect was the proximate cause of [plaintiff's] injury." Rheinfrank v. Abbott Labs, Inc., 119 F. Supp. 3d 749, 760 (S.D. Ohio 2015). "A claim for negligent failure to warn has three basic elements: (1) a duty to warn against reasonably foreseeable risks; (2) breach of such duty; and (3) injury that is proximately caused by the breach.

  2. Willis v. Abbott Labs.

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:15-cv-00057-JHM (W.D. Ky. Dec. 1, 2017)   Cited 1 times
    Restricting Sorrell as pertaining to marketing and not labeling

    Based upon this evidence, the district court concluded that "[p]reemption is warranted because there is clear evidence the FDA would not have approved a change to the Depakote label adding a developmental delay warning prior to" the plaintiff's injuries. Rheinfrank v. Abbott Labs., Inc., 119 F. Supp. 3d 749, 766 (S.D. Ohio 2015). The Sixth Circuit affirmed, stating that "Abbott has met its burden under Wyeth's clear-evidence standard" and specifically noting the 2005 and 2007 rejections by the FDA of Abbott's proposed changes.

  3. Rees v. W.M. Barr & Co.

    Case No. 17-4159 (6th Cir. Jun. 4, 2018)   Cited 15 times

    Where a warning is adequate, a presumption is applied in the manufacturer's favor that the warning "will be read and heeded." Rheinfrank v. Abbott Labs., Inc., 119 F. Supp. 3d 749, 782 (S.D. Ohio 2015) (citing Seley, 423 N.E.2d at 838. Where the warning is inadequate, in contrast, "Ohio law establishes a presumption, beneficial to the plaintiff and which the defendants must rebut, to establish proximate cause in the warning defect context."

  4. Jordan v. Samsung Elecs. of Am.

    2:24-cv-1248 (S.D. Ohio Nov. 20, 2024)

    ” Id. (citing Rheinfrank v. Abbott Labs., Inc., 119 F.Supp.3d 749, 782 (S.D. Ohio 2015) (Dlott, J.)).

  5. Trs. Main/270 v. ApplianceSmart Inc.

    2:22-cv-1938 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 27, 2024)

    . Further, “summary judgment in favor of the party with the burden of persuasion is inappropriate when the evidence is susceptible to different interpretations or inferences by the trier of fact.” Rheinfrank v. Abbott Lab'ys, Inc., 119 F.Supp.3d 749, 786 (S.D. Ohio 2015), aff'd, 680 Fed.Appx. 369 (6th Cir. 2017). Here, the evidence presented is susceptible to different interpretations by a trier of fact: either Plaintiff's negotiation with Flooring Liquidators was reasonable, or it was not; either Defendants put Vintage Stock forward as a proposed tenant, or they did not. Such tension in the evidence demands that summary judgment be denied and that the factfinder must “resolve the parties' differing versions of the truth at trial.”

  6. Lincoln Benefit Life Co. v. Bolton

    1:22-cv-524 (S.D. Ohio May. 2, 2023)   Cited 1 times
    In Bolton, an insurer brought an interpleader action after two individuals asserted beneficiary claims under a life insurance policy.

    Long v. Time Ins. Co., 572 F.Supp.2d 907, 912 (S.D. Ohio 2008) (negligent misrepresentation); Olympic Holding Co., LLC. v. ACE Ltd., 909 N.E.2d 93, 101 (Ohio Sup. Ct. 2009) (promissory estoppel); Rheinfrank v. Abbot Lab'ys, Inc., 119 F.Supp.3d 749, 788 (S.D. Ohio 2015) (common law fraud); Doe v. Archdiocese of Cincinnati, 880 N.E.2d 892, 895 (Ohio Sup. Ct. 2008) (equitable estoppel). Schulte does not allege facts suggesting how he relied on Lincoln Benefit's alleged misrepresentations.

  7. Gordon v. B. Braun Med. Inc.

    Case No. 1:19-cv-121 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 27, 2020)   Cited 9 times
    Finding Plaintiff's common law claims for breach of an express warranty abrogated by the OPLA and allowing Plaintiff to amend her complaint to reassert her claim under the OPLA

    Plaintiff is also not precluded from seeking punitive damages pursuant to her common-law fraudulent misrepresentation claim. See Rheinfrank v. Abbott Labs., Inc., 119 F. Supp. 3d 749, 760, 789 (S.D. Ohio 2015). IV. CONCLUSION

  8. In re Nat'l Prescription Opiate Litig.

    CASE NO. 1:17 MD 2804 (N.D. Ohio Sep. 3, 2019)

    "A failure to warn claim is preempted where the manufacturer of the drug proves that it was impossible to comply with state and federal law by submitting 'clear evidence that the FDA would not have approved a change' to the drug's label." Rheinfrank v. Abbott Lab., Inc., 119 F.Supp.3d 749, 762 (S.D. Ohio 2015) (quoting Wyeth v. Levine, 555 U.S. at 571). The Court agreed with Manufacturers that representations made in their marketing materials must be consistent with specific pre-approved labels submitted to the FDA; state law claims seeking to impose liability on Manufacturers for failing to include statements on their marketing materials regarding the correct dosage and duration of treatments were preempted; and any manufacturer that markets its product with FDA-approved warnings cannot be liable under state law for failing to issue different warnings if the manufacturer can show clear evidence the FDA would have rejected those different warnings.

  9. Vollmar v. Atrium Med. Corp.

    2019 DNH 133 (D.N.H. 2019)   Cited 1 times

    See, e.g., Adeghe v. Janssen Pharms., Inc., No. 16 Civ. 2235 (LGS), 2017 WL 3741310, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 30, 2017) (explaining fact specific nature of heeding presumption). The case that defendants cite, Rheinfrank v. Abbott Labs., Inc., 119 F. Supp. 3d 749 (S.D. Ohio), addresses the heeding presumption in the context of a failure-to-warn claim against a drug manufacturer. Defendants have not shown that Ohio would apply the heeding presumption in the context of a defective medical device case.

  10. McWilliams v. Novartis AG

    CASE NO. 2:17-CV-14302-ROSENBERG/MAYNARD (S.D. Fla. Jul. 9, 2018)

    The other cases cited by Defendant had similarly clear evidence that the FDA had considered the particular medical event at issue and had determined that a label change was not appropriate. See Rheinfrank v. Abbott Labs., 119 F. Supp. 3d 749, 766 (S.D. Ohio 2015) ("The Court finds the FDA's February 2006 decisions that developmental delay warnings 'should not be incorporated into [Depakote] labeling' and the FDA's 2008 belief that 'the data do not provide sufficient evidence to support [Depakote] labeling changes at this time' constitute 'clear evidence' that when confronted by the issue in 2003, the FDA would have rejected an attempt to add a developmental delay warning."); Dobbs v. Wyeth Pharm., 797 F. Supp. 2d 1264, 1273-74 (W.D. Okla. 2011) ("Wyeth's evidence also reflects the FDA's continued rejection of enhanced suicidality warnings for antidepressants during the time period following approval of Effexor. On three occasions prior to Mr. Dobbs's 2002 suicide, the FDA rejected citizen petitions asking it to strengthen the suicidality warnings for Prozac, an antidepressant regulated under the same SSRI classification as Effexor.