Just two weeks before the U.S. Supreme Court decided Riegel v. Medtronic, the Supreme Court of Arkansas had decided Despain v. Bradburn, No. 07-714, 2008 WL 324356 (S. Ct. Ark. Feb. 7, 2008). We dutifully reported that case in our Device Preemption Scorecard, but otherwise didn’t say much about it, because we’re
We got your attention with that title on this blog, didn’t we?
So let’s cut to the chase: There are no loopholes in Riegel.
(Neutral observers sometimes ask why we aren’t more even-handed in our blog posts. We can’t be even-handed because we and our law firms defend pharmaceutical and medical device companies in
This post is the work of Bexis alone; Herrmann had to stay on the sidelines today:
“We grow too soon old and too late schmart.”
That’s what the Pennsylvania Dutch say, and now that seems to be the story of the fen-phen litigation. After a fifteen-year run that produced billions of dollars in settlements, a
Or maybe just legislatively-assisted suicide for the pharmaceutical industry….
Out on the left coast, a bill has been introduced that would put the Golden State in the august company of … West Virginia … by abolishing the learned intermediary rule. We’ve got a copy of it here, but it’s not very long at all
As the whole drug and device world knows by now, Warner-Lambert v. Kent played to a 4 to 4 tie on Monday.
The Supreme Court decision thus “lacks a precedential effect,”Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, 514 U.S. 211, 215 n.1 (1995), and the case law remains where it was two weeks ago.
Thus, if
By the standards of the web, this is old news — the decision came down on January 29.
And, by our recent standards, it’s unimportant news — we’ve been wallowing in Supreme Court cases, and now it’s back to the trial courts.
But we really liked what a federal trial court did in Ebel v.
The views expressed in this post are those of Jim Beck alone.
Hermann and I are pretty much of one mind when it comes to the meat of our blog, such as the broad scope of preemption or the continued value of the learned intermediary rule, so we don’t usually list which of us is
1. A 4-4 split by the Supreme Court is of no precedential value. It doesn’t bind any lower court to any position. Here, this means that the circuit split between the Second Circuit and Sixth Circuits remains. That means that immunity statutes are not subject to fraud-on-the-FDA exceptions in Ohio, Michigan, Tennessee, and Kentucky (the
Well, we said we were fools for trying to predict Supreme Court votes in Kent. Rarely, however, is our foolishness so quickly exposed. The Supreme Court just affirmed the Second Circuit in Kent, by a 4-4 vote – that means nothing is precedential.
More about this later from your resident fools, once we’ve had some
Some folks visit this site by choice — they search the web and come to us.
Others, however, now subscribe by a “Google E-Mail Group,” which means that we inflict an e-mail on you every time we publish a post. That briefly made us more reluctant to waste your time by posting off-topic or frivolous