Skip to main content


English v. Eisai, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44977 (M.D. Pa. March 14, 2022) (Conner, U.S. D.J.).  This case involving a weight-loss product said that plaintiffs properly pled an alternative feasible safer design.  That means that the defendant’s motion to dismiss would be denied.  There were other claims here for warranty, fraudulent misrepresentation, concealment and the rest.  The court first looked at the express warranty claim.  The court said that, as to that claim, the court would not address the conclusory request to dismiss the express-warranty claims at this stage.  The court likewise declined to dismiss plaintiff’s negligent misrepresentation claim, although for different reasons.  Failure to warn theory is viable against prescription drug manufacturers.  The same cannot be said for plaintiff’s fraudulent misrepresentation and concealment claims.  Most district courts have held that fraud-based claims presented on a prescription drug manufacturer’s deficient warning claims are barred by Hahn v. Richter, 543 Pa. 558, 673 A.2d 888 (Pa. 1996).