When you argue implied preemption as much as we do in prescription drug product liability litigation cases, you get to know the plaintiffs’ come back arguments in your sleep. Chief among them is that because the FDA’s so-called “changes being effected” (“CBE”) regulation, 21 C.F.R. §314.70(c), allows drug manufacturers to strengthen safety language without prior
This is off-topic, but one of the curses of writing legal books (we both have) is having to update them. That means we have to set up automatic searches to retrieve new cases. Depending on how broad those searches are, they can collect all kinds of ordinarily extraneous stuff. That’s what happened this morning when
An alert reader read our last post and told us that, just two weeks ago, the Missouri Supreme Court reversed the denial of class certification in a medical monitoring case. Along the way, the court said some nasty stuff about plaintiffs’ ability to recover medical monitoring expenses as an element of damages.
So medical monitoring
Defendants are on a roll in state supreme courts on “medical monitoring” claims.
Before 1997, a few state courts recognized (in varying permutations) medical monitoring claims, which seek to recover the costs of monitoring to detect a disease before the plaintiff has manifested any symptoms. In 1997, however, the United States Supreme Court decided Metro-North
Judge Stengel did some nice work on Wednesday, March 28. In 65 nicely reasoned pages, he came out in favor of both Vaccine Act and FDA prescription drug preemption. If that doesn’t make your spine tingle . . . well, why are you reading this blog, anyway?
In Sykes v. Glaxo-SmithKline, et al., No.
We practice in New Jersey a lot – because so many of our pharmaceuticals clients are based there, and the state’s trial courts have tended to allow plaintiffs from all over the country to file there and avoid removal to federal court in diversity actions. New Jersey also just happens to have one of the
We’ve had a couple of complaints that it’s hard to locate on this blog old posts that contain information of interest. (One of those complaints was Beck complaining to Herrmann; the other was Herrmann complaining to Beck.)
To make things easier, here’s an index of all of our posts to date, with hyperlinks to the
We were excited two years ago when we read the legislative history of the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (“CAFA”). The Senate Judiciary Committee clearly intended CAFA to reverse the traditional burden of proof on remand motions. Before CAFA, the party seeking to invoke federal jurisdiction — the defendant who removed the case —
We’re big fans of the preemption defense in prescription drug cases.
It’s the FDA’s job to assess the safety and efficacy of new drugs. The FDA can surely do that job more dispassionately than jurors, who are not scientific experts and who are, by definition, judging the safety of a product, after the fact, in
The response to our post in January on the Blain class action denial in the Paxil litigation, as well as the likely fallout from the just-decided reversal of class certification in Regents of University of California v. Credit Suisse First Boston (USA), Inc., 2007 WL 816518 (5th Cir. Mar. 19, 2007) (the subject of