While the court has not finally ruled on the plaintiffs’ claims — including novel “innovator liability” arguments, Judge Pierson’s decision signaled those issues could still be taken up down the road. Innovator liability theory makes brand-name manufacturers liable in court for injuries allegedly caused by generic versions of their drugs. This abstract concept has been recognized in other states — California and Massachusetts, for example — but its validity as a legal defense is still up in the air here.
Zantac Cases Must Remain In State Court : Next Steps in the Case
All of the cases filed by two groups of plaintiffs in August 2023 and March 2023 against GSK, Pfizer and Sanofi respectively have been consolidated on Connecticut’s complex litigation docket. The plaintiffs claim that the Ranitidine was broken down into NDMA because of changes in temperature and humidity during transportation, resulting in cancer diagnoses.
They are among thousands of lawsuits involving Zantac sweeping the nation. Snyder’s decision came in the wake of a Florida federal judge dismissing similar claims in multidistrict litigation (MDL) there but smaller cases have popped up since then, including ones filed in state courts like Connecticut.
Zantac Cases Must Remain in State Court : Lawyers React to the Ruling
The decision is “impressive and scholarly,” said plaintiffs’ attorney Brenden P. Leydon, He applauded the court for acknowledging that there were significant connections in Connecticut and not accepting defendants’ arguments to dismiss cases on a narrow interpretation of case-linkage.
