Fosamax Lawsuits’ Future to be Decided by Supreme Court

Fact-Checked

Editors carefully fact-check all Drugwatch content for accuracy and quality.

Drugwatch has a stringent fact-checking process. It starts with our strict sourcing guidelines.

We only gather information from credible sources. This includes peer-reviewed medical journals, reputable media outlets, government reports, court records and interviews with qualified experts.

Fosamax

The fate of about 500 lawsuits involving the drug Fosamax is now in the hands of the U.S. Supreme Court.

The nation’s highest court has agreed to consider overturning an appellate court ruling that reinstated the lawsuits after a federal trial judge dismissed them.

The issue involves whether Merck, the manufacturer of the osteoporosis drug, failed to warn of the danger that patients taking Fosamax could develop a specific type of thigh bone fractures.

Merck argues that it asked the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to approve such a warning on its label, but the FDA denied its request.

Lawyers for the injured patients say Merck asked for a warning about a different kind of fracture than those involved in the lawsuits.

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in March 2017 that jurors should decide the issue. But the Trump administration — invited by the Supreme Court to weigh in — maintained this issue should be decided by judges.

Patients Say Fosamax Increased Risk of Bone Fractures

According to the appellate court ruling, the injured patients say that Fosamax increases the risk of certain bone fractures. The claim involves a process called resorption, in which bones are broken down and then reformed by the creation of new bone cells.

The plaintiffs argue that Fosamax and other similar drugs inhibit bone repair by slowing down resorption. They maintain that bones “frequently develop so-called ‘microcracks,’ which are ordinarily repaired through the resorption process,” according to the court ruling.

“An accumulation of microcracks can lead to incomplete bone fractures called ‘stress fractures,’” the appellate court wrote. “Plaintiffs claim that while stress fractures typically heal on their own, ‘some Fosamax users who develop insufficiency fractures have reduced bone toughness, and Fosamax prevents the normal repair of the fracture.’  According to plaintiffs, these patients may then go on to develop what are known as ‘atypical femoral fractures’: severe, non-traumatic, low energy complete fractures of the femur.”

FDA Warning Request Challenged

In urging the Supreme Court not to take Merck’s appeal, lawyers for the patients argued that Merck asked the FDA to allow a warning about “minor stress fractures,” and not “atypical femoral fractures.” If Merck had asked for a warning about the injuries involved in these lawsuits, the FDA may have permitted that warning, the plaintiffs say.

Lawyers for Merck argued in court filings that the other side had mischaracterized the record and misrepresented the reasoning of the appellate court. “But the Third Circuit understood the relevant facts — that Merck proposed a warning about the risk at issue; that the FDA said no, with no wriggle room; and that the FDA expressed skepticism on the science both before and for 18 months after the rejection.”

In granting review of the case, the Supreme Court has not scheduled arguments. But the case will be heard during the court’s next term, which begins in October.

  •  
  •  
  •  

Elaine Silvestrini is an award-winning journalist with 30 years of experience covering state and federal court systems. She joined Drugwatch in 2017. Her coverage for Drugwatch has been cited in the CDC’s Public Health Law News and the USA Today Network. Some of her qualifications include:

  • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention certificates in Health Literacy
  • Experience as an assistant investigator for the Federal Public Defender
  • Loyola Law School Journalist Law School Fellowship
Edited By

7 Cited Research Articles

  1. U.S. Supreme Court. (2018, June 28). Order list. Retrieved from https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/062818zr_k425.pdf
  2. U.S. Supreme Court. (2017, November). Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Doris Albrecht, et al. Reply in Support of Petition for a Writ of Certiorari. Retrieved from http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/17-290-cert-rb.pdf
  3. U.S. Supreme Court. (2018, May). Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Doris Albrecht, et al. Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae. Retrieved from https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/17/17-290/48645/20180530133707477_00000001.pdf
  4. U.S. Supreme Court. (2017, October 25). Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Doris Albrecht, et al. Brief in Opposition for Respondents. Retrieved from http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/17-290-BIO.pdf
  5. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. (2017, March 22). In Re: Fosamax (Alendronate Sodium) Products Liability Litigation. Retrieved from http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/17-290-opinion-below.pdf
  6. Staton, T. (2018, June 28), Merck wins Supreme Court hearing on pivotal Fosamax pre-emption case. Retrieved from https://www.fiercepharma.com/pharma/merck-wins-supreme-court-hearing-pivotal-fosamax-pre-emption-case
  7. Chung, A. (2018, June 28). U.S. Supreme Court to hear Merck appeal over Fosamax suits. Retrieved from https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-merck-co/u-s-supreme-court-to-hear-merck-appeal-over-fosamax-suits-idUSKBN1JO1Y7
View All Sources
Who Am I Calling?

Calling this number connects you with Wilson and Peterson, LLP or one of its trusted legal partners. A law firm representative will review your case for free.

Wilson and Peterson, LLP funds Drugwatch because it supports the organization’s mission to keep people safe from dangerous drugs and medical devices.

(888) 645-1617