With 2020 mercifully coming to an end, it is once again time for the Drug & Device Law Blog’s top ten decisions of the year. In keeping with COVID-19’s dominance of 2020, we present our top ten in the context of countermeasures against another social ill – the tort pandemic raging across much of the
We refuse to end the year on a bad note, so we’ll talk about a case that’s good – not good enough to make tomorrow’s top-ten list, but good enough to slam the door shut on 2020 with a reasonable amount of cheer.
Vicente v. Johnson & Johnson, 2020 WL 7586907 (D.N.J. Dec. 21,
Plaintiffs’ lawyers, now used to soliciting litigation from municipal governments, labor union health and welfare funds, and Medicare assistance plans, have been trying the same thing with Indian tribes (note: we don’t care much for “Indian” as it reflects Columbus’ 500-year-old navigational error, so we opt for the more accurate Canadian term – “First Nations”).
Unlike the Big Guy tonight, we here at the Drug and Device Law Blog do not distribute bags of toys. Throughout this annus horribilis, we’ve handed out plenty of veritable mixed bags. Langner v. Boston Sci. Corp., 2020 U.S. Dist. Lexis 222125 (D. Nebraska Oct. 1, 2020), is another such mixed bag. Langner
Once again we undertake our annual task of sorting through the worst decisions of the year in prescription medical product liability litigation. These are the true superspreaders of litigation against our clients, extending the contagion of non-socially distanced litigation tourism and other infectious forms of attorney-solicited lawsuits far and wide, to the detriment of almost
It’s crunch time people. No more browsing. No more pondering. No more scrolling. Pick something and buy it. More importantly, you need to ship it. You may not be able to see all of your family this year, but you still want to make sure your gift makes it under their tree. If so, today
Plaintiffs love to tell juries how horrible the defendant’s product is. They’ll tell them how the product kills people – even though the plaintiff in the case didn’t die. They’ll try to bring up purported cancer risks although the plaintiff doesn’t have cancer. They’ll argue that, if the defendant’s device were to fail, they’d face
A long time ago in a law school relatively far away, we took torts as a first year law student. Many of the cases about which we learned (or were supposed to have learned) were from even longer ago and we had no idea how much some of those old cases would inform our practice.
The same Missouri Supreme Court that couldn’t be bothered to review a 22-plaintiff consolidation that resulted in a ten-figure verdict in a talc case saw fit to review a defense verdict in a pelvic mesh case. One wonders where justice stands among that court’s priorities. At least the verdict was affirmed – if only barely,
