Roughly a year ago, we published a post about the trial court decision in Independence County v. Pfizer. There, the Eastern District of Arkansas dismissed claims brought by several Arkansas counties against companies that manufactured over-the-counter cold and cough medicines containing ephedrine or pseudoephedrine. The counties sought to hold the drug companies liable because the
Judicial Wisdom
A panel of five judges — four federal, one state — spoke at the ACI drug and device conference in New York last month. The panel lasted for nearly two hours, but these were, to our eye, the highlights of that discussion from the judges whom we see most frequently in mass torts:
From Judge
Sprint Fidelis Preemption Decision – Yessssss
The first really, really major post-Riegel preemption battle in the PMA device product litigation has been the Sprint Fidelis implantable cardiac defibrillator lead MDL, in which Medtronic moved to dismiss (that means on the pleadings – without discovery) against all claims on the strength of the express preemption clause as interpreted by Riegel.
Oy, Canada!
As we’ve said before, we don’t do Canadian law here. We posted once on that subject, about a year ago, and we were quick to confess our ignorance.
But we were startled by what we heard about Canadian class action law at the ACI conference in New York City last month. One speaker said
Happy New Year on the Class Action Front
We posted earlier when the Second Circuit declared that class certification merits review was “in.” Well, we’re pleased to say that the Third Circuit just joined the party. In In re Hydrogen Peroxide Litigation, slip copy here, decided yesterday, the court “clarified” three areas of federal class action practice:
First, the decision to
Top Ten Best And Worst Prescription Drug/Medical Device Decisions of 2008 – The Best
We’re back again with our manifestly unoriginal, but still interesting, idea of top ten lists for the best and worst decisions in our niche for 2008. It’s a way of recapping our second full calendar year in the blogosphere. Sure, there’s a little bit of time left in 2008, but that isn’t stopping anybody else,
Regulatory Preemption – Class II Devices and Special Controls
The Reed Smith Life Sciences Blog has an interesting post today about a proposed FDA regulation imposing special controls on a class II medical device (tissue expanders) that specifically states the Agency’s intent that those controls have preemptive effect. That, the RS blogger notes, is a first.
Like RS we wonder whether it’s necessary. Where
Polar Bears Nudge the MDL Panel In A Helpful Direction
What better way to celebrate winter than with polar bears? The following guest post, written by Pearson Bownas of Jones Day, discusses the recent Polar Bears decision by the MDL Panel. This work is entirely Pearson’s; neither Beck nor Herrmann had anything to do with it:
The belief that polar bears cover their black
Supreme Court Conference 1/9/09
Materials have been distributed for the United States Supreme Court’s January 9, 2009, conference. Among the certiorari petitions that the Court will consider whether to accept are Colacicco (our posts here and here) and Farm Raised Salmon (our posts here, here, and here). Expect orders, up or down, within a business
Off-Label Promotion MDL Dismissed under FDCA
As far back as the Bone Screw litigation, we’ve argued that many attempts to gin up litigation about alleged off-label promotion are really prohibited back-door attempts at private enforcement of FDCA violations. See Beck & Valentine, “Challenging The Viability Of FDCA-Based Causes Of Action In The Tort Context: The Orthopedic Bone Screw Experience,” 55 Food