We remember how, shortly after the atrocious decision in Johnson & Johnson v. Karl, 647 S.E.2d 899 (W. Va. 2007), rejecting altogether the learned intermediary rule, litigation tourists visiting West Virginia argued that Karl represented that state’s “public policy” and therefore the learned intermediary rule could not apply even to their out-of-state cases under
Standing Out
Last month we brought you word of an excellent result (preemption) in a ridiculous case − a class action claiming that the drops in eye-drops are too big. That decision was in accord with an earlier decision likewise dismissing such claims on preemption grounds. See Thompson v. Allergan USA, Inc., 993 F. Supp.2d 1007
Guest Post – Accutane Amici Say: Relax Somewhere Else – Expert Testimony in New Jersey Should Be Held to a Higher Standard
This guest post is by Reed Smith‘s Devin Griffin. It deals with an important pending appeal in New Jersey’s version of Jarndyce v. Jarndyce – Accutane litigation. As always with our guest posts, the author is 100% responsible for what follows, deserving of all the credit, and any blame. Take it away Devin.
**********
Medtronic v. Lohr Has Two Shadows
For over fifty years, the BBC has been chronicling the exploits of that ultimate learned intermediary, Dr. Who. Over the decades, successive Doctors have crossed swords (or sonic screwdrivers) with a wide variety of enemies, from the Master, through Daleks, Cybermen, Zygons, and Mara. But for us, there is
Shameless Plug: Discount Code for Our Readers to 2017 ACI Drug & Device Conference
As we mentioned several weeks ago, several of your Reed Smith bloggers are making plans to be in New York on December 5-6 to attend ACI’s annual Drug and Medical Device Litigation conference. We’re looking forward to great content and numerous networking opportunities – and maybe even the chance to catch up with
Preemption as a Mass Tort Talisman?
A talisman is something thought to protect whoever has it from evil or harm. In the old days a talisman might be something like garlic to ward off vampires or the Seal of Solomon to keep away various evil spirits. Nowadays, there aren’t so many – although it seems there are some people out there
Reaping the Jurisdictional Whirlwind
Literally for decades plaintiffs in mass torts have employed the business model of flooding jurisdictions seen as friendly to them with more solicited plaintiffs than any court system can possibly handle. They have employed every forum-shopping trick in the book to trap defendants in these jurisdictions, which usually have no relationship to any party. After
MDL Direct Filing & Personal Jurisdiction
Bexis gave a talk the other day at the Washington Legal Foundation on personal jurisdiction after last term’s United States Supreme Court decisions in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court, 137 S. Ct. 1773 (2017) (“BMS”), and BNSF Railway Co. v. Tyrrell, 137 S. Ct. 1549 (2017) (“BNSF”). One
Double Preemption Win in Amiodarone Litigation
With PLIVA, Inc. v. Mensing, 564 U.S. 604 (2011), and Mutual Pharmaceutical Co. v. Bartlett, 133 S. Ct. 2466 (2013), preemption arguments in cases involving generic prescription drugs has become a little like shooting fish in a barrel, as our generic preemption scorecard documents. Still, that’s no reason not to praise good results.
Empty Gestures – Pennsylvania’s Right To Try Legislation
For the second time in three years the Pennsylvania legislature has proven itself entirely unable to carry out its most basic function, which is to pass a budget – any budget – which is balanced and otherwise meets constitutional requirements. Instead, it seems bent on distracting the public from its abject failures with empty gestures.