Supreme Court Report

Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →

Ina Ann Rodman v. Otsuka America Pharmaceutical, Inc.

Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, No. 20-16646 · judgment December 9, 2021


Certiorari denied · May 16, 2022
Pre-decision estimate: 2% cert probability

Before the decision, well below the 4.1% base rate, with no standout signals pointing toward a grant.

Questions presented

This Petition for Writ of Certiorari (“Petition”) originates from failure-to-warn and design defect proceedings initiated by Petitioner, Ina Rodman (“Ms. Rodman”), against Respondent, Otsuka America Pharmaceutical, Inc. (“Otsuka”). At the summary judgment stage, the District Court excluded the report of Ms. Rodman’s expert witness, Dr. Laura Plunkett, and granted summary judgment for Otsuka on the grounds that Ms. Rodman had not presented any evidence to support her claims. The questions presented are:

  1. Whether Ms. Rodman presented admissible evidence in the form of Otsuka’s failure to follow the admonition of 21 C.F.R. § 314.80 to conduct post-marketing surveillance and revise its Abilify label where “reasonable evidence” established a rate of occurrence of tardive dyskinesia exceeding the Abilify label’s warning, and whether such evidence would have been useful to a trier of fact in establishing that Otsuka misrepresented data on the Abilify label, thus resulting in misbranding.

  2. Whether Ms. Rodman, in order to establish her mislabeling claim, was required to present absolute proof of an “incidence rate” of tardive dyskinesia among Abilify users where Rodman established Otsuka’s “misbranding” through competent expert “reasonable evidence,” of the association of tardive dyskinesia and Abilify use, 21 C.F.R. 201.80(e), that Otsuka breached its obligations of post-marketing surveillance and reporting and that Abilify is “dangerous to health when used in the dosage or manner, or with the frequency or duration prescribed, recommended, or suggested in the labeling thereof.” Wyeth v. Levine, 555 U.S. 555, 608 (2009).

Counsel of record

For petitioner
Perry R. Staub Jr.
Taggart Morton LLC

For respondent
Matthew A. Campbell
Winston & Strawn, LLP

Case

Conference history
Distributed for 1 conference

Proceedings

  1. May 16 2022
    Petition DENIED.
  2. Apr 26 2022
    DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/12/2022.
  3. Apr 11 2022
    Waiver of right of respondent Otsuka America Pharmaceutical, Inc. to respond filed.
  4. Mar 09 2022
    Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due April 11, 2022)