Did you ever read something and think – I couldn’t have said it better myself. Sometimes we read opinions that give us just that feeling. A decision that ticks all of the boxes and leaves us wondering why everybody doesn’t see how easy it is to reach the right conclusion. Brooks v. Mentor Worldwide, LLC
Speaking of iffy propositions, we’re reminded of the hypothetical, hindsight-oriented questions that plaintiffs so often ask prescribing physicians: “What if you had known X?” “Would you have liked to know X?” “Wouldn’t you have wanted to know Y?” The (usually) unspoken premise of these questions is the more knowledge is always better than less –
The defense has done a good job of preventing class certification of drug and device mass torts. Individual issues of usage, causation, reliance, injury, etc. predominate over alleged common issues. It has gotten to the point where it is hard for drug and device hacks to find an interesting class cert decision. For that, we
Today’s guest post is by Reed Smith‘s Jenn Eppensteiner. In it she discusses a recurring theme on the Blog – claimed product “defects” arising from nothing more than the failure of an implanted medical device. Case after case has recognized that the human body is a hostile environment for implants, surrounded by the