$21.06 Million Sulindac Verdict Was Proper, 1st Circuit Rules

BOSTON - A federal appeals court has affirmed that a $21.06 million plaintiff's verdict issued in a Sulindac injury case was proper because the design defect claims were not preempted and the plaintiff was not required to show that a safer alternative drug was available. Bartlett v. Mutual Pharmaceutical Company Inc., No. 10-2277 (1st Cir.).

In a May 2 opinion, the 1st Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that under New Hampshire law, a safer alternative is not a necessary element of design defect and design defect claims are not automatically preempted under PLIVA v. Mensing.

In December 2004, Karen …