“When a generic manufacturer adopts a name brand manufacturer’s warnings and representation without independent investigation, it does so at the risk that such warnings and representations may be flawed. Manufacturers of generic drugs, like all other manufacturers are responsible for the representations they make regarding their products.” Id. at 169-70 (emphasis in original). While the Foster court’s discussion about generic manufacturer’s duties to warn may be dicta, it is still persuasive on this Court. Other courts have notably rejected a drug manufacturer’s attempt to evade liability because of its alleged inability to deviate from the name brand manufacturer’s label without triggering preemption. See Laisure Radke v. Par Pharm., Inc., 426 F.Sup.2d 1163, 1169 (W.D.Wash. 2006) (<HOLDING>); Witczak, 377 F.Sup.2d at 729 (holding that 21
holding that the mere fact that the fda does not require a warning on a product label does not necessarily create a conflict holding that no proximate causation existed where a treating physician is well aware of the risks of a medical device independent of any warning by the manufacturer holding that express warranty claims that could only arise out of fda approval are preempted recognizing that subject matter jurisdiction can be questioned at any time and with respect to any claim holding that a generic manufacturer with an approved anda can add or strengthen a contraindication warning precaution or adverse reaction at any time without prior fda approval