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
The Supreme Court has apparently been holding the cert petition in the SSRI antidepressant-suicide case of Colacicco v. Apotex until the Court decided Wyeth v. Levine.
The Supreme Court’s docket now shows that the cert petition in Colacicco will be decided at this coming Friday’s conference. Industry would naturally like to see cert denied in
First, a minor correction. We lost by 6-3, not 6-2 (when you’re typing fast you’re all thumbs). We lost Kennedy, Thomas, and Breyer. We needed to win at least two of them.
The court relied on two facts established by the trial: (1) that a stronger warning would have made a factual difference (eliminating consideration
Wyeth v. Levine was decided this morning and the Court rejected preemption by a 6-2 vote, Justice Stevens writing for the majority. The basics. (1) there is no preemption by impossibility because the FDA’s changes being effected (“CBE” ) regulation permits certain preapproval labeling changes that add or strengthen a warning to improve drug safety.
About a month ago we posted on a New Jersey intermediate appellate decision, Hoffman v. Hampshire Labs, 963 A.2d 849 (N.J. Super. A.D. 2009(, that interpreted the “ascertainable loss” requirement of the state’s consumer fraud act (“CFA”) as requiring the purportedly aggrieved consumer to invoke a money-back guarantee before bringing suit. We viewed the
We’re fixated on the subject: When a plaintiff files a complaint in state court that names both residents and non-residents of the forum state as defendants, can the non-resident defendant remove before the plaintiff serves the in-state defendant?
(We know that’s cryptic shorthand, but regular readers of this blog have seen more expansive descriptions of
Our first ever overseas guest post comes all the way from Thailand, where Douglas Mancill of the Deacons law firm reports on new Thai laws on product liability and their possible impact on/creation of product liability claims involving drugs and medical devices.
Needless to say neither Bexis nor Herrmann had anything to do with the