Photo of Lisa Baird

We write a lot of briefs involving federal preemption and Class III medical devices with premarket approval (or “PMA”).  Many of those briefs are in support of motions to dismiss lawsuits brought by attorneys who don’t regularly practice in the pharmaceutical and medical device product liability space. 

The complaints filed by such attorneys often are

We have spilled a good deal of ink on the Valsartan MDL.  The back-end of the blog says 18 posts (and counting) already reference Valsartan.  Why so many?  Because they usually are so bad.  Today’s post is more of the same.  Hence the deep sigh.

Today’s Valsartan opinion, In re Valsartan, Losartan, & Irbesartan Products

Of late, the Fifth Circuit has come in for some criticism over rulings involving science, the FDA, and medicines.  But apparently even it has its limits—and Article III standing is one.

In Children’s Health Defense v. FDA, No. 23-50167, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 1528, 2024 WL 244938 (5th Cir. 1/23/24), a non-profit and several

No surprise, we are not fans of civil RICO.  We don’t like how it is misused by lawyers on the other side to convert run-of-the-mill pharmaceutical and medical device cases into class actions.  We don’t like that it carries the possibility of treble damages and attorneys’ fees.  We don’t like the elasticity of its terms. 

We have posted a few times (here, here, and here) about the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. FDA/Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. Danco Labs., LLC litigation, in which an anti-abortion group is seeking to invalidate regulatory actions taken by the FDA with regard to mifepristone, a pharmaceutical FDA-approved for use

We’ve discussed our Drug and Device Law Blog elder care duties before and how it has educated us about health issues faced by the senior population.  Shingles is one health risk that increases as you get older.  It is often described as a painful rash, but “painful rash” doesn’t really capture how bad shingles can

As a defense lawyer, one grows accustomed to clear judicial days on which the state court can foresee forever.  See Thing v. La Chusa, 48 Cal. 3d 644, 668 (1989).  On those clear judicial days, when the court catches a glimpse of the possibility of harm shimmering off in the distance, one can be