As we try to keep pace with the unusually fast-moving Zantac MDL, today we review In re: Zantac (Ranitidine) Products Liability Litigation, ___ F. Supp. ___, 2021 WL 2865869 (S.D. Fla. July 8, 2021). As we’ve discussed before, the drug under attack allegedly breaks down naturally into N-Nitrosodimethylamine (“NDMA”), an unfortunately ubiquitous carcinogen.
Shotgun Blast
To find bloggable cases, we (well, Bexis) read a lot of cases that don’t turn out to be sufficiently significant to be bloggable. Even those cases of lesser interest can alert us to trends, if the same issue or argument crops up repeatedly. One of those is the TwIqbal concept of a “shotgun complaint” –
No Consolidated Trial in Injectafer Litigation in E.D.Pa.
This is actually Rachel Weil’s post, but she is having password problems, so Bexis is doing the actual posting
***********
We spent last weekend in a shore house with extended family members (all vaccinated, of course) gathered to celebrate a cousin’s milestone birthday. Since we had last gathered, babies had been born, the family matriarch
Is Something Fishy Going On?
Back in the early days of the blog, when it was a Bexis/Herrmann operation, we wrote about the California Supreme Court decision that opened the floodgates to all that food litigation that now plagues that state − Farm Raised Salmon Cases, 175 P.3d 1170 (Cal. 2008). We explained how the court In Farm Raised
Survival of the Vaxxest
All of us are long-time defenders of prescription medical product manufacturers, and some of us are veterans of the vaccine wars of the 1980s and 1990s involving DPT vaccine and thimerosal. We are big fans of vaccines and the tremendous health benefits they have bestowed on humanity, and are mystified by the alliance between anti-vaccine
Zantac Chronicles V – Medical Monitoring and the Wheels Coming Off
Still more Zantac MDL dismissal orders.
Today’s installment grants dismissal of the plaintiffs’ medical monitoring claims, and also sheds some light on the questionable factual basis of everything being asserted in this MDL. As we’ve pointed out in our prior posts (such as this one), plaintiffs allege that the active ingredient in this drug
FDA Reporting and Consumer Protection Issues Certified to Connecticut Supreme Court
As we discussed in our recent 50-state survey on failure-to-report claims, plaintiff-side allegations seeking to predicate “warning” liability on a defendant’s allegedly failing to comply with FDCA adverse event reporting claims are “relatively new.” That’s because, like so many other novel claims we’ve seen lately, it’s a transparent dodge to avoid preemption. We said
Banned on the Run
With apologies, this time, to Sir Paul − “The circuit judge, who held a grudge, has put the FDA’s banned on the run. . . .”
That’s just about what happened in Judge Rotenberg Educational Center, Inc. v. United States FDA, ___ F.4th ___, 2021 WL 2799891 (D.C. Cir. July 6, 2021) (note the
It’s Back! It’s Wayback! It’s Away, Wayback! It’s Admissible!
With apologies to Harry Kalas.
Bexis had a couple of encounters with the “Wayback Machine” (a/k/a/ the “Internet Archive”) recently. If you don’t know what that is, it’s digital library of Internet ephemera – web pages and the like − that have since been taken down, revised, or otherwise have become unavailable in
The 402A Plot Thickens in Pennsylvania
Recently, in the context of an IVC filter case, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals certified two questions to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court:
1. Under Pennsylvania law, must a plaintiff bringing a negligent design claim against a prescription medical device manufacturer prove that the device was too harmful to be used by anyone, or may