Thomson Reuters News & Insight
Featured Content from WESTLAW

Legal

  •  
  •  

Bayer REUTERS Fabrizio Bensch

Supreme Court reinstates Bayer Baycol lawsuit

6/16/2011 COMMENTS (0)

WASHINGTON, June 16 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that West Virginia plaintiffs can proceed with a class-action lawsuit against Bayer AG over Baycol, its cholesterol-lowering drug withdrawn from the market in 2001.

The justices unanimously overturned a U.S. appeals court's ruling that the lawsuit could not go forward because a federal judge had earlier rejected a similar class-action lawsuit filed by another West Virginia plaintiff.

The 8th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals sided with Bayer and ruled that the two plaintiffs could not relitigate the issue in seeking class-action certification.

Baycol was distributed from 1997 until August 2001, when the prescription drug was withdrawn from the market after its use had been linked to 31 deaths in the United States, according to the appeals court.

Bayer has said it had settled the claims of more than 3,100 individuals for $1.17 billion and vigorously contested the lawsuits of other plaintiffs who did not suffer any adverse side effects from the drug.

The company said the plaintiffs in the case waited seven years after filing their lawsuit before seeking class certification and that the issue had been resolved in the similar lawsuit.

The West Virginia plaintiffs said they did not know of the other lawsuit and had the right to proceed in state court.

The Supreme Court in an opinion written by Justice Elena Kagan ruled against Bayer and reinstated the lawsuit.

She said that in enjoining the state court from considering the class certification request, a federal judge had exceeded his authority under the Anti-Injunction Act.

The federal judge thought the injunction appropriate to prevent relitigation of an issue he had decided, but Kagan disagreed for two reasons.

First, she said the issue presented in state court was not identical to the one decided in the federal tribunal. Second, the state court plaintiffs did not have the required connection to the federal suit to be bound by the federal court judgment.

The Supreme Court case is Smith v. Bayer, No. 09-1205.

For the West Virginia plaintiffs: Richard Monahan of The Masters Law Firm.

For Bayer: Philip Beck of Bartlit & Beck; Peter Sipkins of Dorsey & Whitney; Susan Weber of Sidley & Austin.

(Reporting by James Vicini)


Register or log in to comment.

© 2013 Thomson Reuters