The Alabama Supreme Court has agreed to reconsider a widely disseminated opinion that it issued in January in which it held that brand-name drugmakers can be held liable for injuries caused by drugs produced by generic manufacturers.

Many legal experts said at the time of the court's ruling in Wyeth Inc. et al. v. Danny Weeks and Vickie Weeks that it could have a significant effect on other pharmaceutical cases and even on product liability litigation that is not pharmaceutical-related, although some dismissed it as an outlier ruling by a noninfluential court.

The underlying case involved a patient who developed tardive dyskinesia, a condition that causes involuntary movements, after his long-term use of the prescription heartburn drug metoclopramide, a generic form of the brand-name Reglan that was produced by Wyeth Inc. Wyeth has since been acquired by New York-based Pfizer Inc.

In a brief, two-sentence ruling issued Thursday, the Alabama Supreme Court said it would hear an oral argument in the case in September, with notification of the exact time and date to follow. Pfizer had asked the court to reconsider its ruling in February, the company said in a statement Friday.

Pfizer said in the statement the initial ruling was made without the benefit of an oral argument.

%%BREAK%%

“The order provides the company with its first opportunity to present oral argument before the Supreme Court of Alabama and reinforce the well-established legal principle that a business should not be held liable for a product it did not manufacture or market,” Michael J. Parini, senior vice president and associate general counsel, chief litigation counsel for Pfizer, said in the statement. “The court's decision is at odds with the vast majority of courts across the country, including all four federal appeals courts to address this same issue.”

Pfizer said in its statement that 79 decisions applying the law of 25 different states have held that brand-name pharmaceutical manufacturers may not be held liable for injuries caused by products they did not manufacture.

The statement said also that 62 decisions applying the law of 23 states have now applied that rule specifically to defeat claims that seek to hold manufacturers of Reglan responsible for injuries allegedly caused by generic versions of the drug.

Meanwhile, in March, a three-judge panel of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati held in Eleanor Fulgenzi v. Pliva Inc. that a lawsuit filed against the manufacturer of the generic version of Reglan for failure to update a warning label can proceed. Ms. Fulgenzi claimed she also developed tardive dyskinesia after ingesting metoclopramide produced by Pliva, a unit of Zagreb, Croatia-based Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd.