ThePLIVA,Inc.v.Mensing case discussed in the text,involved theissue 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 US Supreme Court?
A) That federal law did not preempt state law claims for failure to warn.
B) That federal law preempted state law claims for failure to warn.
C) That 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) That 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 US Supreme Court held that federal law preempted state law claims for failure to warn. The court concluded that the federal law requirement for generic drugs to bear the same FDA-approved labels as their brand-name counterparts made it impossible for generic drug manufacturers to comply with both federal and state law duties, and thus, state law claims were preempted.