Mensing v. Wyeth

Mensing v. Wyeth

Appeal of Minnesota federal court decision holding (1) that a plaintiff’s failure-to-warn claims against generic drug companies for injuries caused by metoclopromide are preempted by federal law; and (2) that her failure-to-warn claims against the manufacturers of the brand-name version of the drug could not proceed on the ground that brand-name manufacturers do not owe any duty to consumers of generic versions of their drugs.

Lou Bograd of the Center for Constitutional Law and Public Justice’s Claire Prestel are lead appellate counsel.

The plaintiff is also represented by Michael K. Johnson and Lucia J.W. McLaren of Goldenberg & Johnson, PLLC; Daniel J. McGlynn of McGlynn, Glisson & Koch; and Wil Fluegel of the Fluegel Law Office. 

Case Documents

  • Merits Brief

    Written by Lou Bograd of the Center for Constitutional Litigation, with input from Public Justice's Leslie Brueckner and Claire Prestel. The brief stresses that the plaintiff's failure-to-warn claims against the drug manufacturer should not be preempted by federal law.

  • 8th Circuit opinion

    Holding that Ms. Mensing's claims against the generic manufacturers of metoclopramide are not preempted by federal law. The opinion does affirm the dismissal of Ms. Mensing's claims against the manufacturers of name-brand Reglan.

  • Brief

    Public Justice's brief to the U.S. Supreme Court, urging the justices to uphold the Florida Supreme Court's ruling that, under Florida law, Florida state courts must first determine whether a payday loan contract that charges interest rates of up to 1,300 percent is criminal and void ab initio before enforcing any provision in it, including a mandatory arbitration provision.

    U.S. Supreme Court

    Docket: 04-1264
  • Appellant's Opening Brief

    Appellants' Opening Brief challenging a contract term banning class actions embedded in a cable company's arbitration clause, in a case where consumers of broadband internet service allege breach of contract and consumer protection claims

    Kentucky Court of Appeals

    Docket: 06-CI-04267

Skip to content