An interesting recent petition, 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.  The “lead” petition is Maxwell-Jolly v. Independent Living Center of Southern California, Inc., and the follow-up to it is 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
Docket: 09-1156
Issue: Whether a plaintiff can state a claim under § 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 based on a pharmaceutical company’s nondisclosure of “adverse event” reports even though the reports 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) Whether Medicaid recipients and providers may maintain a cause of action under the Supremacy Clause to enforce § 1396a(a)(30)(A) by asserting that the provision preempts a state law reducing reimbursement rates; and (2) whether a state law reducing Medicaid reimbursement to providers may be held preempted by § 1396a(a)(30)(A) based on requirements that do not appear in the text of the statute.
For 09-958:
For 09-1158:
CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY