Source: http://www.annalsofhealthlaw.com/annalsofhealthlaw/vol_22_issue_3?pg=93
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 20:24:09+00:00

Document:
But first, we discuss the role that Dear Doctor letters have played in federal preemption cases laying out the warning duties of generic and brand name manufacturers.
56. See, e.g., Weiss v. Fujisawa Pharm. Co., 464 F. Supp. 2d 666 (E.D. Ky. 2006), Perry v. Novartis Pharma. Corp., 456 F. Supp. 2d 678 (E.D. Pa. 2006); Gaeta v. Perrigo Pharms. Co., 630 F.3d 1225, 1231 (9th Cir. 2011); see also Demahy v. Actavis, Inc., 593 F.3d 428 (5th Cir. 2010); Vitatoe v. Mylan Pharms., Inc., 696 F.Supp. 2d 599 (N.D.W. Va. 2010); Schedin v. Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharms., Inc., 776 F.Supp. 2d 907, 911 (D. Minn. 2011) (“Ortho-McNeil still had various other options at its disposal to warn consumers, such as ‘Dear Doctor’ letters, or training by sales representatives with individual doctors. It could also have proposed an alteration to the label.”).
57. Perry, 456 F. Supp. 2d at 686.
58. Weiss, 464 F. Supp. 2d at 675.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.