Last week (we think; it was before Levine anyway) we reported on the belated and meritless recusal motion filed by the plaintiffs in the Sprint-Fidelis litigation. We were remiss in not reporting sooner, but the other day, the court denied the motion, as it well should have. The last section of the opinion discussed some
But we’ve noted before how silly it seems to echo at our little blog things that we’ve previously said in prominent papers.
As you know, we’ve had a few words to say about the Supreme Court’s decision last week in Wyeth v. Levine (here, here, and here).
But we weren’t alone.
Jim Copland argues in Monday’s Washington Times that Congress should adopt an administrative compensation scheme (akin to the vaccine act) that would
As we predicted last week (here and here), the Supreme Court this morning granted petitions for certiorari, vacated the appellate decisions, and remanded for reconsideration in light of Wyeth v. Levine the Third Circuit decisions in Colacicco v. Apotex and Pennsylvania Employees Benefit Trust Fund v. Zeneca.
Here’s a link to today’s Order
Here’s the deal:
Riegel v. Medtronic tells us that there is preemption for medical devices approved through the premarket approval process.
Wyeth v. Levine tells us that there is often not preemption for prescription drugs.
Is there a reasoned basis for distinguishing between drugs and devices?
Of course: The Medical Device Amendments of 1976 contain
There’ll no doubt be a bunch of them, but the law firm client alerts about Wyeth v. Levine are beginning to hit the street (at least the streets where clients and potential clients live). Readers can send them to us. If we like them – if they’ve got some original thought – we’ll link to
It’s been a tough two days for the drug and device industry.
Yesterday, Wyeth v. Levine.
Today, the Medical Device Safety Act of 2009, which is meant to reverse legislatively the Supreme Court’s pro-preemption decision in Riegel v. Medtronic.
Here’s a link to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, which reports on the introduction
A little more than a year ago, back in February 2008, a majority of the Supreme Court stated, in Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc.:
Indeed, one would think that tort law, applied by juries under a negligence or strict-liability standard, is less deserving of preservation. A state statute, or a regulation adopted by a state
We mentioned yesterday that the previously held cert. petition for Colacicco was distributed for consideration at the Justices’ conference tomorrow. We decided to check the docket for
Pennsylvania Employees Benefit Trust Fund v. Zeneca, Inc., No. 07-822, as well. Sure enough, this petition has also been re-distributed. Thus, it’s likely that there will be
We’ll have more to say later, but here’s a rundown of some of the press coverage of Wyeth v. Levine: The New York Times (quoting (among others) Herrmann); AmLaw (quoting (among others) Bexis); the Washington Post (quoting (among others) Herrmann); the Wall Street Journal (subscription only) here, here, and here (not quoting us