Last week we posted about the advent of onerous new reporting rules for product liability defendants with respect to Medicare Secondary Payor matters, courtesy of the Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP Extension Act of 2007.
Apparently the government shares at least some of our apprehensions. We recently received a heads up from Alphie Nelson at Watten
We’re pleased by the dismissal of Myers-Armstrong v. Actavis Totowa LLC, 2009 WL 1082026 (N.D. Cal. April 22, 2009). In M-A, the defendant was basically shut down by the FDA over Good Manufacturing Practices issues at its plant. The defendant recalled over 100 drugs (it was a generic manufacturer) at the wholesale, but
Not one, but two, of our readers emailed us about a recent Sixth Circuit decision, Best v. Lowe’s Home Centers Inc., 2009 WL 1010883 (6th Cir. April 16, 2009), when it came down. Unfortunately, we had other things going on – and Best wasn’t a drug/device case – so we didn’t get around to
A tip of the cybercap to Harley Ratliff of Shook Hardy for sending us word of a device preemption win on appeal in Connecticut. Mullin v. Guidant Corp., AC29829, slip op. (Conn. App. May 12, 2009). We’d blogged about the trial court decision in Mullins – back when it was the first post-Riegel
Following the same tack as in Colacicco, the Third Circuit today reversed and remanded Pennsylvania Employee Benefit Trust v. Zeneca, Inc., to the District of Delaware. The complete text of the order:
On March 9, 2009, the Supreme Court of the United States granted the petition for writ of certiorari in the above
This guest post was written by David Booth Alden of Jones Day. We thank Dave for the contribution and remind you to credit (or blame) him, not us, for what follows:
Product liability plaintiffs generally prefer to try cases in which the evidence relates only to parties that are in court and from whom
J.C. McElveen, of Jones Day, submitted the following guest post, for which we thank him. As is always true of guest posts, our guest gets all the credit for what follows:
Relatively few legal cases have discussed the newly emergent field of genomics, but there is no shortage of discussion on the subject. In