We’re doing it again. We’ve prepared our top ten lists for 2008 – the top ten best, and the bottom ten worst drug and medical device product liability decisions of the year – our second full turn of the calendar in the blogosphere. You might think we’d start with the top ten, but that would
A Gripe With A Piece of Scientific Literature
J.C. McElveen, of Jones Day, wrote the following guest post, for which we thank him. As is always true of guest posts, the two of us had nothing to do with what follows; JC gets all the credit. (We alone, however, are to blame for not knowing how to create subscripts in blog posts.
Preemption and Investigational Devices after Riegel
One of the questions we’ve been asking – but not finding answers – is where exactly do investigational medical devices (IDE) fit in to the preemption rubric after Riegel. Investigational devices, after all, are PMA, only their applications haven’t been approved yet. Since IDE devices are subject to the same regulations as PMA devices,
Bong Water Blues
The two of us have been slaving over this blog, regularly producing substantive posts about cutting edge legal issues, for more than two years now.
And what do we get called out for (by name) over at Above the Law this morning?
The “bong water” case.
We’re speechless.
Informal Physician Interviews – Where It’s Kosher; Where It’s Not
We’ve blogged before about the importance of both sides in personal injury litigation – and especially drug/medical device product liability litigation involving the learned intermediary rule – having equal rights to talk to treating/prescribing physicians. We’ve praised courts that have gotten this issue right – most significantly the New York Court of Appeals in the
Gunvalson v. PTC Therapeutics: Injunction Reversed
The Third Circuit just issued its opinion in Gunvalson v. PTC Therapeutics (link here), the case in which a trial court issued an injunction requiring a drug company, PTC Therapeutics, to provide an experimental drug to a patient outside of the context of a clinical trial. (One of our many earlier posts on
New York, New York (reprise)
We posted last year about the NY Court of Appeals excellent decision in Arons v. Jutkowitz, on defense interviews with treating physicians.
We’re doing it again. Here’s a copy of the Court of Appeals (that’s the state’s highest court) recent decision in Adamo v. Brown & Williamson holding that, where a product’s only function
Amending FAS 5 — An Update
The Financial Accounting Standards Advisory Council held a public meeting yesterday to discuss the proposed amendment to FAS 5, which deals with the disclosures that publicly traded companies must make about litigation. (We previously posted on that topic this summer.)
We’ve heard through the grapevine that FASB is now considering an alternative to
Blog Honors
We were pleased to see that USPharmD included us in its list of the “Top 50 Medical Ethics Blogs.” Lord knows, we’re not medical ethicists, but the list includes other topics, such as “medicine and the law” and “pharmaceuticals,” so at least we’re in the neighborhood. More importantly, you may find the other blogs on
On Communicating By E-Mail
Herrmann’s book, The Curmudgeon’s Guide to Practicing Law, has a chapter about “couth” that discusses, among other things, communicating by e-mail.
He’s now had two reactions to that chapter that he just has to share.
First, right after the book came out, an inside counsel offered this rant about lawyers communicating with clients by e-mail: