Big Pharma: Private Codes of Conduct as Evidence of Negligence
Drug and Device Law has an exceptionally detailed post about the new voluntary PhRMA guidelines, along with dozens of cases holding that such guidelines don’t create negligence per se liability standards, particularly not retroactively.
But what about ordinary, post hoc negligence? Can voluntary industry codes be relevant to the standard of care?
Absolutely! For example, the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case they cited, Knarr v. Chapman Sch. of Seamanship, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5351 (E.D.Pa. 2000)(interpreting Florida law), rejected the per se application of ANSI standards, but was happy to cite "Jackson v. H.L. Bouton Co., 630 So. 2d 1173, 1174-75 (Dist.Ct.App.Fl. 1994)(violation of ANSI standards is "merely evidence of negligence.)."
The same is true in Pennsylvania, where evidence of industry standards is clearly relevant to the reasonableness of a manufacturer’s conduct, and is thus admissible, except in strict liability cases where reasonableness is irelevant. Lewis v. Coffing Hoist Div., Duff-Norton, 515 Pa. 334, 528 A.2d 590, 594 (Pa. 1987). As you’d expect, if the plaintiff brings in industry standards, so too can the defendant. Daddona v. Thind, 891 A.2d 786, 807 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2006).
As for whether its plaintiffs or defendants are engaging in what D&D Law calls "foolishness," you can bet your bottom dollar that every PhRMA defendant from here on out will make their compliance with these new standards the centerpiece of future defenses, and that PhRMA took great pains to ensure these codes were easy to comply with and would play well in front of judges and juries.
Seriously, look at these codes and consider the state of the industry in 2008:
Promotional materials should:
(a) be accurate and not misleading;
(b) only make substantiated claims;
(c) reflect the balance between risks & benefits; and
(d) be consistent with all FDA requirements.
Decisions regarding the selection or retention of [health care providers] as consultants should be made based on defined criteria such as general medical expertise and reputation, or knowledge and experience regarding a particular therapeutic area.
Companies should not use consultant arrangements as inducements or rewards for prescribing a particular medicine or course of treatment.
Train representatives to ensure general science and product-specific information so that representatives can provide accurate, up-to-date information, consistent with FDA requirements.
That’s voluntary? It should be mandatory. No praise will come from these quarters, I don’t consider it a "good deed" to encourage member companies follow FDA requirements. It’s the law.
In 2008 we have to remind (it wasn’t part of the old code!) pharmaceutical companies not to mislead people with promotional materials. What a shame.