Donald Rumsfeld once justified attacking Iraq without firm evidence that his target possessed the ultimately apocryphal “weapons of mass destruction” by citing fear of the unknown:
Reports that say that something hasn’t happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also
We had been waiting for the Utah Supreme Court’s decision in Burningham v. Wright Medical for some time. As we pointed out in a blogpost when Burningham was first certified by the district court (Utah is one of the few courts allowing district court certification), over a year ago, “[p]ractically no court has . .
We’ve blogged numerous times about the tentative, non-final, and informal status of FDA warning letters (and untitled letters and similar enforcement precursors like Form 483s). We’ve cited precedent, FDA internal manuals, FDA’s own position taken in formal briefing, and learned treatises on FDA law. That an FDA warning letter has no binding legal effect (indeed,
As your bloggers – at least those without school-aged children – begin to mourn the dawning end of summer, we do at least see one bright spot in the ever-shortening days: ACI’s annual Drug and Medical Device Litigation conference.
We’re looking forward to interesting presentations from the always-exceptional faculty of in-house counsel, top defense
This appeared on September 3, 2019, on the Missouri Supreme Court’s list of “Writs and Other Original Proceedings”:
SC98009 State ex rel. Monsanto Company, Relator, vs. The Honorable Michael K. Mullen, Respondent.
Petition for writ of prohibition sustained. Preliminary writ ordered to issue returnable to Court en banc within fifteen days.
(Emphasis
Somebody asked Bexis the other day whether he thought that the increasing reliance on “telemedicine” – physician consultations taking place online, perhaps followed by the prescription of a drug or medical device – posed any risks to the learned intermediary rule.
Bexis said, “no.” Would you expect other answer?
That response was based largely on
Bexis is updating the preemption chapter of his prescription medical product liability treatise, and with Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Albrecht, 139 S. Ct. 1668 (U.S. 2019), being so new, he collected a bunch of law firm blogs/client updates about the case to see what potential issues other lawyers out there might
Here is the third and final part of our 50-state opus on precedent supporting the principle that plaintiffs asserting claims dependent on propositions that ordinary people aren’t expected to know must come forward with expert opinions for those propositions. As mentioned previously, this project arose from something we read about in the Mirena litigation –
What follows is the second part of our extensive 50-state of cases precluding plaintiffs from proceeding with claims in the absence of admissible expert support. Part One was last week. In most states such rulings originated in medical malpractice and workers’ compensation actions, with the relevant principles broadening to encompass product liability and toxic torts.
We recently blogged about the final chapter (at the district court level, anyway) of the big defense win in the Mirena MDL. The long-overdue result was entry of summary judgment for the defendant against all claims. As the blog also chronicled, the key Mirena decision had been earlier – and was already appealed and