Photo of Eric Alexander

From its start, the Blog has railed against certain expansions of traditional product liability that could have negative impacts on scientific progress and the availability of good medical products.  Innovator liability, first described in Conte back in 2008, is a good example of a bad idea.  Its offspring, the so-called duty to innovate

Four weeks ago, we posted concerning an MDL judge’s decision not to sanction a plaintiff lawyer for false representations concerning diversity jurisdiction.  We disputed that acting in the client’s “best interest” was a good excuse and questioned whether MDL courts cut plaintiff lawyers more slack than they should.  We also had a bit of a

Like the radio stations of yore did with songs, we offer up two related posts back-to-back instead of the usual one.  We cannot offer a “favorite artist” as the source of consecutive songs, we offer two posts that relate to the legal implications of some of the typical things that FDA does and has been

Public policy favors scientific and medical research.  So do we.  While the theories of various claims asserted against sponsors of medical research—and the reasons for rejecting them—vary greatly, the underlying incentive to promote good research certainly plays a role in protecting those that sponsor and conduct medical research from virtually unlimited liability for alleged

This is from the Holland & Knight side of the Blog only.

If you have followed the Blog, then you will know that we have long touted the importance of Erie deference by federal courts sitting in diversity.  We have also questioned the expansion of tort law to allow governmental entities to use public nuisance to shift the costs of governmental services to private entities without calling it a tax.  We have even discussed the issue of abrogation of common law claims, which can be seen as a lingering source of unchecked liability, when a state enacts a product liability act.  For various reasons, however, we have largely declined to comment on the use of public nuisance as the primary theory for governmental entities as plaintiffs in opioid litigation.  Today’s post is an exception, and it deals with a pretty significant decision, which we think is overdue.Continue Reading Ohio Does Not Recognize Public Nuisance Claims For Products

We have written many times, as recently as Tuesday, that the practice of plaintiff lawyers to include patently inapplicable claims among a laundry list of causes of action asserted in complaints is lazy, if not problematic.  It is rare to see a plaintiff self-regulate and cull down an overbroad pleading without a defense motion

We have no personal knowledge of the litigation concerning GLP-1 receptor agonist medications and the Blog has not posted on it yet, but we do know something about litigation over widely used prescription medications.  Over the decades, there have been many drugs or classes of drugs that became “blockbusters” because they were widely prescribed to