Today’s case has a little bit of everything – choice of law, statutory compliance, alternative design, warnings causation. So, the decision is a bit of “grab bag” in addition to being a “mixed bag.”
The case is Hyde v. C.R. Bard, Inc., 2018 WL 3586404 (D. Ariz. Jul. 26, 2018). To begin with, plaintiff
The other day Law 360 published a piece, “Bristol-Myers Unlikely To Shake Up Class Action Landscape,” which opined that, “in the end, the effect of Bristol-Myers on the national class action landscape is likely to be minimal.” One basis for that conclusion was “[I]t is unlikely that a majority of federal appellate courts will
We spent yesterday in New York City, helping the Drug and Device Law Rock Climber (now the “Drug and Device Law Software Engineer” – yes, we are kvelling) move from one sublet to another as she continues her quest for the perfect apartment. The day was challenging, as these things tend to be. We lost
We’ve heard that we should welcome some new subscribers, who aren’t that interested in drug and device litigation, per se, but have been attracted by our coverage of personal jurisdiction issues relating to tort litigation generally. Thanks for joining. Here is a brief description of our available personal jurisdiction resources.
First, we maintain a personal
We’ve complained before about the federal government’s monetization of First Amendment violations in the context of truthful promotion of off-label uses:
[T]he government has ruthlessly monetized its questionable ban on truthful off-label promotion for quite a few years now. Indeed, the government has used this ban as the basis for a creeping administrative takeover of
This post is from the non-Reed Smith side of the blog only.
We truly dislike decisions that find that claims of failure to report adverse events to the FDA are non-preempted, parallel violation failure to warn claims. Failure to report claims are not parallel. Federal law does not require warnings to plaintiff or her doctors.
We’ve already unloaded on Hammons v. Ethicon, Inc., ___ A.3d ___, 2018 WL 3030754 (Pa. Super. June 19, 2018), where the court made a virtually unprecedented holding that a defendant challenging personal jurisdiction on Due Process grounds had the burden of proof in the course of allowing a litigation tourist from Indiana to stay
It can sometimes be difficult for us here at the DDL Blog to address “mixed bag” cases. We are quite clear that we are a defense side blog. Love us or hate us – we don’t pull punches. We hoard and covet preemption and learned intermediary wins and treat each one like the gem that
Today’s guest post is by Reed Smith associate Regina Nelson. In it she tackles an issue that inevitably arises whenever ediscovery for defendants is successful, that is, what must be done to have the fruits of that discovery be admitted at trial, otherwise known as authentication. She discusses a recent Pennsylvania appellate case that
Antitrust was our favorite course in law school. That law school was located in the south side of Chicago, city of big shoulders and bigger minds (Posner, Easterbrook, et al.) who weren’t shy about subjecting antitrust law to flinty-eyed analysis. It was exciting. It was logical. It focused on real world results. Earlier Chicago School