We know that headline is boring: “Accutane: McCarrell Remanded For New Trial.”
But give us a break.
Levine comes down. We’re duty-bound to blog about it. The press calls for reactions to it. We’re writing about the case in print media. We’re being asked to speak about the case.
And then there’s our real jobs:
Last month, the web was ablaze with speculation about whether Chief Justice Roberts would recuse himself from Wyeth v. Levine, because the Chief owns stock in Pfizer, and Pfizer had announced its intention to acquire Wyeth. Coverage of that issue appeared here, here, and here, among other places.
Here’s what the Chief
So far, we’ve learned of the following upcoming webinars with panels analyzing the implications of Wyeth v. Levine:
On Friday, March 27, at noon Eastern, the Defense Research Institute presents “Supreme Court’s Preemption Decision in Wyeth v. Levine,” featuring Michael Davis and Rebecca Wood (both of Sidley Austin), who wrote an amicus brief in
We’ve decided to blog on a less depressing preemption subject than Wyeth v. Levine today. We’ve seen a couple of recent medical device preemption cases that just about bookend the field. In Hofts v. Howmedica Osteonics Corp., 2009 WL 331470 (S.D. Ind. Jan. 12, 2009), the court found just about as little preemption (and
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