on Apr 8, 2010 at 4:23 pm
An interesting recent petition,Â Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. v. Siracusano, challenges whether a pharmaceutical company must disclose reports of negative side effects in drug users when evidence that the drug causes the side effects is not statistically significant.
Two other recently filed petitions raise questions of federalism and statutory construction in the context of Medicaid claims. Â The “lead” petition isÂ Maxwell-Jolly v. Independent Living Center of Southern California, Inc., and the follow-up to it isÂ Maxwell-Jolly v. California Pharmacists Association. Both originated in the Ninth Circuit.
The petitions and the questions presented in them follow the jump. Â Briefs in opposition have not yet been filed.
Title: Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. v. Siracusano
Issue: Whether a plaintiff can state a claim underÂ Â§ 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and SEC RuleÂ 10b-5 based on a pharmaceutical companyâ€™s nondisclosureÂ of “adverse event” reports even though the reportsÂ are not alleged to be statistically significant.
Title: Maxwell-Jolly v. Independent Living Center of Southern California, Inc.; Maxwell-Jolly v. California Pharmacists Association
Docket: 09-958;Â 09-1158
Issues: (1)Â Whether Medicaid recipients and providersÂ may maintain a cause of action under the SupremacyÂ Clause to enforce Â§ 1396a(a)(30)(A) by asserting thatÂ the provision preempts a state law reducing reimbursement rates; and (2) whether a state law reducing Medicaid reimbursement to providers may beÂ held preempted by Â§ 1396a(a)(30)(A) based on requirementsÂ that do not appear in the text of theÂ statute.