Case Name: Gayle DIETRICH and William H. Dietrich, Appellants, v. ACTAVIS, INC.; Actavis Elizabeth, LLC; Actavis Mid-Atlantic, LLC; and Pliva, Inc., Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2014-05-21
Citations: 138 So. 3d 1163
Docket Number: No. 4D12-4589
Parties: Gayle DIETRICH and William H. Dietrich, Appellants, v. ACTAVIS, INC.; Actavis Elizabeth, LLC; Actavis Mid-Atlantic, LLC; and Pliva, Inc., Appellees.
Judges: STEVENSON, CONNER and FORST, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Third Series
Volume: 138
Pages: 1163–1163

Head Matter:
Gayle DIETRICH and William H. Dietrich, Appellants, v. ACTAVIS, INC.; Actavis Elizabeth, LLC; Actavis Mid-Atlantic, LLC; and Pliva, Inc., Appellees.
No. 4D12-4589.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
May 21, 2014.
David J. Sales of David J. Sales, P.A., Jupiter, for appellants.
Richard A. Dean of Tucker Ellis LLP, Cleveland, Ohio, and Ethen R. Shapiro of Hill Ward Henderson, P.A., Tampa, for appellees Actavis, Inc., Actavis Elizabeth, LLC, and Actavis Mid-Atlantic, LLC.
Rex A. Littrell of Ulmer & Berne LLP, Columbus, Ohio, Jeffrey F. Peck of Ulmer & Berne LLP, Cincinnati, Ohio, and Steven J. Rothman of Jones, Foster, Johnston & Stubbs, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellee PLIVA, Inc.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See PLIVA, Inc. v. Mensing, — U.S.—,—, 131 S.Ct. 2567, 2577, 180 L.Ed.2d 580 (2011) (holding federal law prevents a generic drug manufacturer from "independently changing" its safety labels to provide additional warnings); Morris v. PLIVA, Inc., 713 F.3d 774, 777 (5th Cir.2013) (extending Mensing ⅛ holding so as to foreclose state tort claims based on a generic drug manufacturer's failure to communicate approved label changes in a manner that the name brand manufacturer had not, i.e., "Dear Doctor" letters); Guarino v. Wyeth, LLC, 719 F.3d 1245, 1249 (11th Cir.2013) (agreeing with the Fifth Circuit's reasoning in Morris, and holding a generic drug manufacturer's failure to communicate approved label changes is preempted under federal law); but see Brasley-Thrash v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc., No. Civ. A. 10-00031-KD-N, 2011 WL 4025734, at *3 (S.D.Ala. Sept.12, 2011) (holding Mensing does not prevent a generic drug manufacturer from sending out a letter "that simply reiterates warnings contained in the approved label"). We find the reasoning and holding stated in Morris and Guarino to be most consistent with the Supreme Court's ruling in Mensing.
STEVENSON, CONNER and FORST, JJ., concur.