Particularly in economic loss class actions, we occasionally have to deal with claims involving the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act (“MMWA”). Thus, we have covered MMWA issues before. Here’s another one. In In Re Hill’s Pet Nutrition, Inc., Dog Food Products Liability Litigation, 2022 WL 1641291 (D. Kan. May 24, 2022), the court held
We are always delighted to find a case that bars a claim based on FDA preemption, but Nexus Pharms., Inc. v. IntegraDose Compounding Servs., LLC, 2022 Minn. Dist. LEXIS 1734 (Minn. 4th Dist. May 24, 2022), is unusual. It is not a product liability case. Rather, a pharmaceutical company sued a compounder for fraudulently
Given what we saw in states such as Mississippi, Oklahoma, and Idaho even before the Supreme Court’s in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Org., ___ S. Ct. ___, 2022 WL 2276808 (U.S. June 24, 2022), we fully expect attempts by such states to ban FDA-approved prescription drugs that can be used to
This post is from the non-Dechert side of the blog.
Before we get to today’s case, we fondly tip our hat to the Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show, held (and televised) last week. Regular readers know how much we love this annual event and also may recall that our “heart breed” is the Standard Poodle.
Summary judgment was affirmed in Vesoulis v. ReShape LifeSciences, Inc., 2022 WL 989465 (5th Cir. April 1, 2022), although the recent troubling trend towards non-precedential defense wins but precedential defense losses continues. Vesoulis was a one-off suit under Louisiana law against the manufacturer of a pre-market (“PMA”)-approved medical device and the implanting – or, more properly, explanting – surgeon. Plaintiff allegedly suffered an injury that, according to the informed consent form he signed, was a one in 10,000 possibility. Id. at *1.
The device being PMA approved, one might think that the chief defense was express preemption under Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc., 552 U.S. 312 (2008). It wasn’t. Rather, plaintiff’s central warning claim fell under the Louisiana product liability statute (“LPLA”) because the surgeon was “experienced.” Id. at *2. Instead the case turned on implied preemption under Buckman Co. v. Plaintiffs Legal Committee, 531 U.S. 341 (2001).
Continue Reading FDCA-Based Negligence Per Se & Informed Consent Don’t Mix
We’re pragmatic geeks. That means we love personal-jurisdiction issues. This year alone we’ve reported on personal-jurisdiction cases here, here, and here. And then yesterday we did it again. Although the decision we discussed yesterday, English v. Avon Products, Inc., — N.Y.S.3d —-, 2022 WL 1787160 (N.Y. App. 2022), was unfortunate in
This is called the Drug and Device Law blog, but every once in a while we discuss cases that involve neither drugs nor devices. Usually that is because those cases offer lessons applicable in our subject matter area. Or – and this is a confession – sometimes those cases are simply fun. For example, we
Perhaps not as menacing as Lions and Tigers and Bears (Oh my) – but feasible, adequate, and effective proved to be too much for plaintiff in Davis v. Johnson & Johnson, 2022 WL 2115075 (Jun. 9, 2022).
It is a remanded pelvic mesh case. On defendant’s motion to exclude certain testimony by plaintiff’s expert, most
We have written a number of posts about pelvic mesh cases over the years. Some of us have also worked on a number of cases. At this point, many cases have gone from MDL to local district court to judgment to appeal. Over time, the tide seems to have turned. That could be because the
An explanted medical device is an interesting thing. It was designed and made to reside within the human body, and it was implanted for the purpose of saving or improving life, even if only cosmetically. Sometimes it has to be removed, often by design and under the applicable standards of care. Take for example retrievable