January 2024

Photo of Eric Hudson

We’ve been posting about decisions from In re Smith & Nephew Birmingham Hip Resurfacing (BHR) Hip Implant Products Liability Litigation, MDL 2775, since 2018.  Its preemption ruling on defendant’s motion to dismiss made the list of ten worst decisions from 2018, and a subsequent preemption decision reflected more MDL madness.   Things improved when the court began addressing causation at summary judgment, and pretty soon cases were falling like dominoes.  Today’s decision from the MDL, Williams v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 2024 WL 99542 (D. Md. Jan. 8, 2024), continues that positive trend.Continue Reading Another Dismissal in the Birmingham Hip MDL

Photo of Stephen McConnell

Two years ago we posted on whether courts could exclude prospective jurors for cause because they weren’t vaccinated.  Not much precedent was then available. 

Now, with United States v. O’Lear, 2024 WL 79971 (6th Cir. Jan. 8, 2024), we get the first published appellate decision on the topic, affirming the exclusion.  (The Ninth Circuit…

Photo of Bexis

As we discussed at length in this post, since the 1940s, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and other courts applying Pennsylvania law have refused to subject prescription medical products to strict liability.  That is significant because, unlike (now) every other state in the country, since 1987 Pennsylvania precedent prohibited defendants from introducing evidence of their…

Photo of Steven Boranian

We reported a few months ago on oral argument in the California Court of Appeal in Gilead Life Sciences v. Superior Court, where the parties argued about whether California law recognizes a broad “duty to innovate.”  At issue was whether a product manufacturer could be liable to patients taking one drug for failing to…

Photo of Bexis

Much of the Camp Lejeune litigation is rapidly becoming, in military parlance, FUBAR.  Even prominent plaintiff-side lawyers have started calling out the avalanche of fraudulent claims that MDL-style solicitation has been generating.  Congress permitted liability, so now the United States itself is being targeted by the same litigation practices that plague MDL defendants.

But the…

Photo of Stephen McConnell

Our work on “hard goods” (automobile, appliance, fire) product liability cases is greatly outnumbered by our drug and device cases (and probably also outnumbered these days by website privacy cases).  But the history of product liability has often been driven by such hard goods cases.  Think of Cardozo’s famous opinion in MacPherson v. Buick.…

Photo of Bexis

In our recent post describing the best prescription medical product liability litigation decisions of 2023, no fewer than three of the opinions we discussed:  #4 In re Acetaminophen-ASD-ADHD Products Liability Litigation, ___ F. Supp.3d ___, 2023 WL 8711617 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 18, 2023), #5 Onglyza Products Cases, 307 Cal. Rptr.3d 480 (Cal. App. 2023)…

Drug & Device Resources

Bexis’ Book

FDA-regulated products now account for an estimated one-fifth of overall economic activity in the U.S. They have also been the focus of a litigation explosion. This timely guide covers all aspects of litigation involving drugs, medical devices, vaccines and other FDA-regulated prescription products.
Learn more about this book