Google Analytics tell us where in the world the visitors to our blog come from.
We’ve just now received a visitor from our 150th different country!
Kyrgyzstan put us over the top.
Honest to God — Kyrgyzstan. You’ll find it right there in central Asia, bordered by Kazakhstan to the north, Uzbekistan to the
Defense lawyers looking for useful CLE may want to consider the upcoming webinar put together by that the DRI’s Product Liability Committee and its Mass Torts & Class Actions Subcommittee.
The topic: “Defending Medical Monitoring Claims — Recent Developments and Best Practices.”
The presenters: Sean Wajert, who’s been a guest blogger here, specifically on
The Biomaterials Access Assurance Act of 1998?
Why the heck are we writing about that now?
Well, first, it’s our blog; if we entertain no one else, at least we can entertain ourselves.
And, second, one of us recently received a call from a sophisticated in-house lawyer at a sophisticated drug or device
The ABA Journal has just announced its picks of the 100 best web sites by lawyers, for lawyers.
Your humble Drug and Device Law Blog made the cut in the “Niche” category.
Now there’s some kind of vote going on.
We don’t know what you win at the end of this vote, but
Our crystal ball is usually cloudy.
Not so when the U.S. Supreme Court split four-to-four and thus affirmed Warner-Lambert v. Kent, 552 U. S. ____ (2008) , by an equally divided court. We confidently predicted that this issue would continue to percolate in the lower courts until the Supreme Court actually resolved it.
And it’s
A tip of the hat and an extra helping of turkey for Tom Stayton for sending along a copy of a new medical device preemption decision, Link v. Zimmer.
The product: a total knee replacement device called the “natural knee II.” It’s a class III pre-market approved device (naturally). It had to be replaced
No this post isn’t about Canadian pharmacies, Chinese counterfeits, or anything dodgy like that. Instead, we’re referring to a preemption topic we’ve never discussed before.
We can almost hear you scoffing. Surely, in over two years of “all preemption, all the time” blogging, that’s the one topic we haven’t missed. Wouldn’t that be like Court
By the standards of the blogosphere, this news is prehistoric. It dates not from last week or (perish the thought!) last month, but all the way back to February, when we were young. Nonetheless, the Tennessee Supreme Court’s decision in Walker v. Sunrise Pontiac-GMC Truck, Inc., 249 S.W.3d 301 (Tenn. 2008) (link from the
This is a practical – some would say, impractical – post. One of the blogging duo is currently involved in one of the more headache-inducing aspects of mass tort litigation, the process of putting together motions in limine. So he’s got a few gripes.
The other half has been there and done that. In
Professor Richard Epstein, of The University of Chicago Law School, has this article about Wyeth v. Levine in this week’s issue of Forbes.
Professor Epstein favors preemption, but he thinks that Wyeth’s position does not go far enough: Wyeth seeks preemption only because of a conflict between the warnings that the FDA required and the