Folks who are following the litigation involving the alleged link between SSRI antidepressants and suicide will want to read the recent post from Pharmalot.
The FDA has revised its MedGuide for the antidepressants, and a Republican Congressman from New Jersey is not pleased.
CAFA’s Revolving Door?
This guest post was written by Sean Costello. Mr. Costello is an associate resident in the Atlanta office of Jones Day. This post is entirely his work. It, of course, represents only his views, and not the views of his clients or firm:
The Class Action Fairness Act has succeeded in shifting more
Law Firm Blogging
Our post on Friday about law firm blogging has drawn a little attention in the blogosphere.
In addition to the comments appended to the post itself, visit spamnotes.com, for example, where a blogger suggests that “law firm blogs” simply can’t work, because they would, by definition, lack the individual authorial voice that’s needed for a
Contingent fee research
Point of Law has a fascinating post about recent research into contingent fees.
Here’s the’s the paragraph that caught our eye, discussing why the standard 33% contingent fee does not represent market failure:
“[T]he standard rate endures in the market thanks to a process of assortative matching, that is, the process through which the plaintiffs
YOUR FIRM LOGO HERE
We’ve been thinking about Francis Pileggi and his woes over at the Delaware Corporate and Commercial Litigation Blog. (As an aside, we must note that Francis’ blog is everything this one isn’t: It has fancy graphics, nifty links, and all kinds of bells and whistles. We, as you’ve surely noticed, have bupkus.) According to
Levine to Next Term?
We haven’t seen any formal announcement, but the remainder of the Court’s argument schedule for the current term has now been finalized, and Wyeth v. Levine isn’t on it (neither is the other preemption case, PM v. Good). The two cases from the six granted on 1/18 that are on the list are MetLife
Breaking News, Just In
Two new defense wins – links provided. First, today the Eighth Circuit affirms (now reported at 514 F.3d 815) a no-causation verdict in HRT litigation on the basis that the plaintiff herself (not the learned intermediary, so it’s something of an odd situation) was warned but failed to read the warning. Thanks to Mike Scott,
Preemption, Mass Torts and representing our clients
There’s a new case in our Drug Preemption Scorecard this week, and we don’t mean Herrmann’s brilliant win in Dobbs (although you can be sure that’s there as well). The new case is Gourdine v. Crews, 2006 WL 5277412 (Md. Cir. June 28, 2006), aff’d on other grounds, 935 A.2d 1146 (Md. App.
Fosamax As A Mass Tort
Bexis’ firm represents Merck, so he was not involved in drafting this post. Pin the blame for what follows exclusively on Herrmann:
We were so busy ranting yesterday about that article on spine surgery in The New York Times that we nearly overlooked this little ditty from The Wall Street Journal. It reports that the
Congratulations! You’re Our 100,000th Customer!
Well, not quite — and we’re not offering a prize.
But we’ve just passed a milestone: The Drug and Device Law Blog has just received its 100,000th pageview.
We’re not throwing a party or anything.
But we sure do like the company. Thanks for visiting.