We’re pleased to report on another preemption victory, Horne v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals, 2008 WL 1847077 (W.D. N.C. Apr. 23, 2008), this time involving the drug Lotensin, which (logically enough) is used to reduce hypertension/high blood pressure. While the opinion is only a “partial” dismissal, it’s our sense that the “partial” victory covers the really
Adverse Event Reporting – By The Numbers
Today we’re boldly going where lawyers usually fear to tread (at least alone) – into the realm of epidemiology, albeit perhaps loosely defined. Why? Well, we do have to come up with things to write about, and there’s only so much preemption theorizing that even we can do before it sounds like we’re babbling.
Also,
Alaska Zyprexa Consumer Litigation Settles
There’s a settlement announcement on Eli Lilly’s website. It looks like $15 million changed hands. While it’s over (and litigating in Alaska this time of year is no fun), we still have considerable reservations about this type of suit, which we’ll be discussing in the future. This particular suit, however, is history.
A Few Of Our Favorite Posts
We’ve been at this for nearly a year and a half now, to the tune of over 400 posts.
Man, are we tired.
On the other hand, we’re awfully proud of . . . well, four of those 400 posts.
These are our favorites:
We really liked our Anatomy of a Mass Tort from June
Today’s News
We don’t usually operate as a news aggregation service here at the Drug and Device Law Blog, but we noticed three items today that we thought would interest many of our readers.
First, today’s Wall Street Journal reports on Pfizer’s unsuccessful (at least before a magistrate judge) effort to subpoena documents about Bextra and Celebrex
Damned If You Do . . .
We don’t usually report on labor and employment cases in this space.
Heck, we don’t usually read labor and employment cases.
But the recent decision in Mylan Pharmaceuticals , Inc. v. United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Local 8-957, No. 1:07CV4, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17988 (N.D.W. Va. Mar. 6, 2008), compels us to speak.
North To The Future?
Without the question mark, that’s Alaska’s state motto.
With the question mark, it’s our title for a post analyzing the on-going trial in State of Alaska v. Eli Lilly and Company.
The State of Alaska is seeking civil penalties from Lilly under the Unfair Trade Practice Consumer Protection Act of at least $1000 for
Preemption In Philadelphia
As regular watchers of our Drug Preemption Scorecard know, the good guys had been on a bit of a roll with preemption in prescription drug cases in 2008. We’d gone 5 for five, with courts in Dobbs v. Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, 530 F. Supp.2d 1275 (W.D. Okla. 2008); O’Neal v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 551
Taxation By Litigation – A Dubious Proposal To Expand False Claims Act Liability
Neither of us, personally, knows a whole lot about the False Claims Act, but we know a stealth tax increase when we see one. There’s a bill floating around Washington, with the innocuous sounding name of “The False Claims Act Correction Act Of 2008” that isn’t really about “false” claims or “correction.”
Rather,
Unequal Minds Think Alike (Sharkey’s Model to Understand Preemption Jurisprudence)
Professor Catherine Sharkey (now at NYU Law School), who’s written more about preemption than most of us have read, saw this morning’s post about how the Supreme Court often adopts the position on preemption urged by an agency in an amicus brief. She alerted us that she has an article that will appear in the