Plaintiffs love gross sales representatives.  They love to make use of them to attempt to maintain instances in state court docket—naming them as non-diverse defendants.  They like to attempt to use them to get round preemption—claiming a direct responsibility from the rep to the plaintiff.  They usually definitely love making gross sales consultant statements and conduct a focus of their instances.  That’s as a result of plaintiffs attempt to argue that legal responsibility attaches any time a gross sales rep makes an announcement that’s “inconsistent” with the label.  Defining “inconsistency” liberally, plaintiffs attempt to use gross sales reps to get across the discovered middleman doctrine typically with out far more proof than that the gross sales rep visited the prescribing physician.  In actuality, nonetheless, failure to warn claims in prescription drug and system instances continuously are thwarted by educated physicians who apply their unbiased medical judgment in deciding whether or not a course of therapy is in the perfect pursuits of their sufferers.  Subsequently, if courts maintain the eye on the doctor, the place it ought to be, the discovered middleman doctrine ought to relegate the function of the sale rep most often to the again burner. 

That’s exactly what the court docket did in Gulledge v. Depuy Orthopaedics, Inc., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 187267 (S.D. Ala. Oct. 17, 2023).  Taking its cue from each the Pinnacle Hip Implant MDL and a N.D. Illinois determination in one other case remanded from that MDL, the court docket in Gulledge denied plaintiff’s request to depose the gross sales reps who have been current within the working room on the time of her implant surgical procedure and her revision surgical procedure.

First, whereas the case was within the MDL, plaintiffs usually requested permission to depose gross sales reps arguing that the reps who have been within the working room “would see the place the system brought on vital hurt to the affected person” and “hear the surgeon focus on his or her findings throughout the surgical procedure.”  Id. at *3.  The MDL Particular Grasp deferred the appropriateness of gross sales rep depositions till after the surgeons had been deposed.  Id. at *4.  A step in the correct course of conserving the docs within the foreground of the evaluation.

Second, this problem was raised in Baldwin v. DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54471 (N.D. Unwell. Mar. 30, 2023), the place the court docket discovered that “the mere indisputable fact that the sale representatives have been current for the implant surgical procedures” didn’t make their testimony related.  Id. at *5.  Slightly, plaintiff wanted to ascertain a “nexus between the sale representatives’ presence on the surgical procedures and the plaintiff’s claims.”  Gulledge, at *10-11.  Strike one other observe for conserving the eye appropriately on the healthcare suppliers. 

Third, using the selections of the MDL and Baldwin, the Gulledge court docket seemed on the testimony of plaintiff’s surgeons on this case:  (i) gross sales reps don’t have any medical involvement within the working room and are primarily there to verify the medical units can be found throughout surgical procedure; and (ii) the surgeons do their very own “due diligence” which included studying publications, attending programs, and talking to friends concerning the hip implants.  So, plaintiff had no proof that both of plaintiff’s surgeons truly relied on info from the sale reps.  The surgeons’ testimony additionally made it clear that they have been higher positioned to testify about plaintiff’s situation or the situation of the implants—not the gross sales reps.  Lastly, the court docket famous that voluminous doc discovery had taken place within the MDL the place 1000’s of pages of selling, gross sales, and product communications have been produced.  Including that up, the court docket discovered the testimony of the gross sales reps wouldn’t be related.

This determination has a number of factors of influence for this case and others prefer it.  First, the proof cited by the court docket in denying the depositions must also function the idea for abstract judgment on failure to warn.  If plaintiff’s surgeons did their very own analysis and evaluation and used their unbiased medical judgement in deciding to make use of the hip implant, plaintiff’s failure to warn declare ought to be barred by the discovered middleman doctrine.  Second, defendants ought to be utilizing Gulledge and Baldwin in MDLs to induce courts to do precisely what the Pinnacle Hip Implant Particular Grasp did—defer gross sales rep depositions till after prescriber depositions—and to solely permit gross sales rep depositions the place plaintiff has the nexus proof described above.  In MDLs with a whole bunch or 1000’s of plaintiffs, only one or two gross sales rep depositions per case could be a vital time and useful resource drain on defendants. To what finish if no reliance?  The higher course is to maintain the main focus the place it must be, on the prescriber.