The PLIVA,Inc.v.Mensing case involved the issue of whether the federal law requirement that generic drugs must bear the same FDA-approved labels as their brand-name counterparts preempts state law claims for failure to warn.What was the holding by the U.S.Supreme Court?
A) Federal law did not preempt state law claims for failure to warn.
B) Federal law preempted state law claims for failure to warn.
C) Federal law preempted state law claims for failure to warn based on strict liability but that failure to warn claims based on negligence could proceed.
D) Federal law preempted state law claims for failure to warn based on negligence but that failure to warn claims based on strict liability could proceed.

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

The U.S. Supreme Court held that federal law preempts state law claims for failure to warn in generic drug cases. This means that state law claims cannot impose different labeling requirements on generic drugs than those required by federal law.