Shortly after Wyeth v. Levine came down, we linked to the client alert on the case that Bexis’ firm prepared. To avoid sounding like shills, we offered to link to other firms’ client alerts, too, on the theory that great minds don’t necessarily think completely alike.
Well, we finally got one – nearly a month
This post discusses a Vioxx case, and Bexis’ tongue is thus tied. The following post was written by Herrmann alone:
Earlier this year, in a post cleverly titled, “Oy, Canada,” we deplored the fact that apparently no Canadian trial court had ever denied a motion to certify a class action.
We’re pleased to report that
A bill recently introduced in the New York State legislature proposes to eliminate the learned intermediary doctrine for prescription drugs or devices that are promoted through direct-to-consumer advertising. Here’s a link to the description of the bill.
A legal question that recently circulated on the defense counsel listserv for the Product Liability Advisory Council, Inc. (“PLAC”) drew a lot of attention, and thus strikes us as a good subject of discussion. That question was whether there’s authority allowing a product liability defendant to redact or otherwise keep confidential its customers’ contact information
A little more than a year ago, we blogged about Ebel v. Eli Lilly & Co., 536 F. Supp.2d 767 (S.D. Tex. 2008), which granted summary judgment in a suicide case involving off-label use of Zyprexa, primarily on warning causation grounds – but as we posted then, the plaintiff had seven strikes against him.
We see all these fascinating law review articles appear in print, and we plan to read the articles and react intelligently to them.
Then life gets in the way.
Instead of actually reading the things, we pile a bunch of ’em up on our desks and then give up. Instead of publishing an intelligent blog
We don’t do food; we do drugs.
(Does that sound bad?)
We veered off into food to read The People ex rel. Edmund G. Brown, Jr. v. Tri-Union Seafoods, LLC, No. A116792, 2009 Cal. App. LEXIS 309 (Cal. App. Mar. 11, 2009), a California Proposition 65 case. Tri-Union involved a lawsuit brought by the State
The Third Circuit has just affirmed summary judgment on grounds of express preemption under the Vaccine Act in Bruesewitz v. Wyeth, No. 07-3794, slip op. (3d Cir. March 27, 2009). Interpreting the statute’s legislative history as demonstrating congressional intent to preempt sufficient to overcome any presumption against preemption, the court creates a split of
We’re veering way off topic here.
And we recognize that you have to share our perverse concept of “fun” to appreciate the website that we’re about to recommend. (Remember: In an odd way, we’ve thought it was “fun” to publish these 834 blog posts over the course of the last 2 1/2 years.)
But Academic
The Third Circuit entered this order today in Colacicco v. Apotex:
“The foregoing motion by Appellee Beth Ann McNellis and unopposed request by Appellant Colacicco for a 15-day extension of time to file memoranda until April 16, 2009 is granted. Opposing counsel may file their responses on or before April 30, 2009.”
The plaintiffs-side briefs