Member Login
Forgot Password?


Advocates Circle Firms

Barkan Meizlish
Handelman Goodin DeRose
Wentz, LLP



Elk & Elk



Murray & Murray Co., LPA



Daniel Goetz, Esq.



Nager Romaine &
Schneiberg Co., LPA



Kitrick Lewis
& Harris Co., LPA



Rourke & Blumenthal



Meyer Wilson Co., LPA


Cecil & Geiser



Bordas & Bordas, PLLC



Arthur O'Neil Mertz
Michel & Brown Co., LPA



Nurenberg Paris Heller
& McCarthy Co., LPA



Spangenberg, Shibley & Liber



Landskroner, Grieco
& Merriman, LLC



The Moore Law Firm



O'Connor, Acciani, & Levy, LPA



The Lawrence Firm, PSC
& Associates



Upcoming Events

Memorial Golf Outing

Columbus, OH
[ Details ]

2014 Annual Convention
Columbus, OH
[ Details ]

Self-Study Webinars


[ Details ]


OAJ Award Nominations

If you know of a deserving OAJ member, legislator, member of the media, or jurist, please take a moment to nominate them for an award to be handed out at the 2014 Convention.

[ Learn More ]


2014 Annual Convention

Celebrate OAJ's 60th Anniversary with Colleagues and Friends at the 2014 Annual Convention on May 7-9, 2014

[ Learn More ]


Save Time & Money

Receive a competitive quote for your Professional Liability Coverage Today

[ Learn More ]


Memorial Golf Outing

Grab your clubs (or borrow some) and come out to the OAJ Memorial Golf Outing to have fun and win prizes before our Annual Convention.

[ Learn More ]


 1 2 3 4 



Thursday, April 24, 2014

Generic Drug Full Disclosure – A Solution To The Supreme Court’s Decision In Bartlett

By: Stuart Scott
Last fall, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced a proposed rule that would change how and when generic drug companies need to update their warning labels.  The Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) requires that generic drugs must have the same approved label as the brand-name drug (known as the Reference Listed Drug, or RLD).  It has been the position of the FDA that this same “labeling” requirement applies throughout the life of the drug.  But the FDA proposed rule would change that by allowing generic drug companies to substantively update their drugs’ labeling, without waiting for the RLD’s labeling to be updated first, to reflect newly acquired information about the drug.  This change would make generic drug manufacturers responsible for monitoring the health effects of their drugs and changing labels to reflect new dangers or an increased risk of known dangers.  Under the proposed rule, a generic maker’s legal liability for failure to promptly update its drug label with adequate information warning doctors and patients about the risks and dangers of its drug would no longer be shielded by federal preemption – currently afforded the industry by the Supreme Court’s recent landmark decisions in PLIVA, Inc. v. Mensing, 131 S.Ct. 2567 (2011) and Mutual Pharmaceutical Co. v. Bartlett, 133 S.Ct. 2466 (2013).
The Process Of Drug Labeling

Presently, when a drug is approved by the FDA, whether a brand name or generic, the manufacturer may make changes to the FDA-approved labeling through three different types of submissions:

1.    Prior Approval Supplement

2.    A Changes-Being-Effected Supplement (CBE)

3.    Annual Report
Changes submitted via a Prior Approval Supplement cannot be implemented until the FDA approves the changes.  Changes submitted via a CBE can be implemented by the drug maker upon the FDA’s receipt of the supplement.  (FDA still ultimately reviews and approves or rejects the proposed changes).  An RLD’s labeling must be updated through the submission of a CBE to reflect newly acquired information about the clinical hazards of the drug in the form of a new or more robust warning.  The labeling must be updated as soon as there is reasonable evidence of causal association.  Because of the “same labeling” requirement the CBE process is only available for generic drugs when the label is being updated for the RLD.  In other words, a generic drug maker cannot independently update its drug labeling to add or strengthen a warning regardless of the evidence of risk or hazard unless and until the FDA approves an update to the RLD’s labeling.  It is from this regulatory framework and the capitulation of a majority of Supreme Court Justices that the generic drug industry has been able to forge the nearly impregnable defense of federal preemption against failure to warn tort claims.


By: Cathleen Bolek, Esq., Cleveland, OH 

It is not uncommon for injury victims to need time off from work. Unfortunately, there is no easy answer to the question of whether their employer is required to allow them to take a medical leave. The Family and Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. 2601 et seq. (“FMLA”), the Americans with Disabilities Act, as Amended, 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq. (“ADAAA,” formerly known as the “ADA”), and its Ohio counterpart, R.C. §4112.02, all require some employers to allow some employees to take medical leave. There is a tremendous body of case law and administrative regulations interpreting these statutes. This article is intended only to provide a brief overview of the law regarding medical leaves in the employment context.

To determine whether an employee is entitled to take a medical leave, the first step is typically to determine whether the FMLA applies. If the answer to any of the following questions is “no,” then the FMLA will not apply to your client:

  • Did the employer have 50 or more employees for at least 20 workweeks in the current or preceding calendar year?

  • Has your client been employed for at least one year with that employer?

  • Has your client worked at least 1,250 hours for that employer during the past 12 month period?

    If the answer to all of these questions is yes, then the client is entitled to take up to twelve weeks of leave per year for his or her own serious medical condition. FMLA leave is typically unpaid, but the employer must continue to provide benefits. The employer may require the employee to use up accrued vacation and personal days as part of the 12 week period. The use of paid leave does not extend the leave.


Sprint investors awarded class action status in Nextel merger suit
By: Zach Warren
Shared from

In 2005, Sprint Corp. merged with fellow mobile phone giant Nextel, creating one of the world’s largest mobile companies. However, some Sprint investors believe they were misled about the financial impact of the merger, and after a court’s ruling, they now have the ability to bring a class action lawsuit.
U.S. District Judge Eric Melgren in Kansas City ruled on March 27 that an investor lawsuit against Sprint and former CEO Gary Forsee may proceed with class action status. In the lawsuit, investors claim that Sprint and Forsee misled investors by inflating stock prices following the merger.
The suit claims that Sprint encountered financial difficulties directly following the merger, between October 2006 and February 2008. As a result of technological difficulties merging the networks, Sprint lost thousands of customers. However, the suit says, Forsee continued to trumpet the sale and said in both press releases and regulatory filings that Sprint was receiving billions in benefits from the merger.
According to a Reuter’s report, the same day that Dan Hesse replaced Forsee as CEO, the company disclosed that it had lost 683,000 customers in three months. The company’s stock price fell by 25 percent that day, the suit says.
Melgen ruled that the case may proceed as a class action because the plaintiffs “are substantially similar, rely upon much of the same evidence, and will require many of the same witnesses.” Melgen also said, “A single class action is a preferable and superior method to duplicative litigation by individual parties.”
The lawsuit comes at a poor time for the Sprint executive board. According to reports, Sprint is eyeing a merger with T-Mobile US INC, although U.S. regulators have come out against the deal.

              OAJ on YouTube.
This week, Pfeifer shares what qualities are needed to be a good Supreme Court Justice.

Exclusive interviews with Supreme Court Justice Paul Pfeifer on topics from lawyer discipline to big money in polictical campaigns today.

Parrish v. Jones: Another Pitfall for Plaintiff Medical Malpractice Cases?

By: Justin Madden
On December 4, 2013, the Ohio Supreme Court announced its opinion in Parrish v. Jones, wherein it affirmed an appellate decision to overturn a directed verdict in favor of a co- defendant in a medical malpractice trial, but on other grounds. The question arises whether Parrish helps ensure that meritworthy medical malpractice cases are resolved by juries, or whether Parrish creates another pitfall to upend a Plaintiff’s case on a technicality?

Background of the Parrish Case:
Karen Parrish was diagnosed by Dr. Jones for an acute peripheral-nerve disorder, and following her hospitalization, was transferred to a rehabilitation facility to be followed by Dr. Skocik. There was an alleged breakdown in communication between the doctors resulting in a failure to prescribe anticoagulation therapy. Consequently Karen developed a pulmonary embolism that caused her death.

Med Mal Cap Violates Florida Constitution
Shared from ABA Journal
The Florida Supreme Court has ruled in a 5-2 opinion that the state’s cap on noneconomic damages in wrongful death cases violates the right to equal protection under the state constitution.
In a plurality opinion (PDF), Justice R. Fred Lewis also said the damages cap did not bear a rational relationship to an “alleged medical malpractice insurance crisis in Florida.” A legislative conclusion that the state was in the midst of such a crisis, threatening access to health care, “is dubious and questionable at the very best,” Lewis said.
Three concurring justices would find an equal protection violation, but did not agree with Lewis’ “expansive review” of the legislature’s policy findings.



Our friends of OAJ sponsors