Medicis Pharmaceutical Corporation v. Watts

Case Updates

The Arizona Supreme Court held that the Consumer Fraud Act applies generally, and remanded the case for a determination of warning adequacy.

In its coalition brief, the U.S. Chamber urged the Arizona Supreme Court to reverse a lower court decision that undermined the well-established “learned intermediary doctrine” applicable to failure-to-warn lawsuits against drug and device manufacturers. Under long-established Arizona law, drug and device manufacturers satisfy their “duty to warn” by warning the prescribing physician of the risks of the products. In this case, the plaintiffs have argued that Arizona should completely eliminate the “learned intermediary” defense or, in the alternative, create a new exemption that would prohibit companies that directly market to consumers from relying on the defense.

The Chamber's amicus brief warned that, if the Arizona Supreme Court allows the lower court’s decision curbing the doctrine to stand, the risk of increased liability would deter medical companies from producing new drugs and devices, meaning fewer innovative treatments would be available to those who need them, which allows a manufacturer of a drug or medical device to satisfy its duty to warn by warning medical doctors as “learned intermediaries” between the manufacturer and the patient-consumer.

The U.S. Chamber filed this brief jointly with the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers Association of America, Arizona Chamber of Commerce & Industry, and Arizona Manufacturers Council.

Alan Blankenheimer and Michael X. Imbroscio of Covington & Burling LLP served as co-counsel for the amici with the U.S. Chamber Litigation Center.