Photo of Michelle Yeary

So learned plaintiff in United States ex rel. Plaintiff v. Novo Nordisk, Inc., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 174825 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 26, 2024), when the court granted defendant’s two motions to compel obviously relevant documents and information.

Plaintiff relator and intervening plaintiff, the State of Washington, assert False Claims Act (“FCA”) claims against the

Plaintiffs naming local sales representatives—or doctors, or pharmacies, or distributors, or retailers—as defendants to try to destroy diversity and avoid federal court is nothing new.  Unfortunately, defendants bear a “heavy burden” proving fraudulently joinder.  In fact, our last post on the topic was in February 2023, demonstrating that successes on this issue are few

Adding to the growing favorable precedent concerning state human tissue shield statutes is Heitman v. Aziyo Biologics, Inc., 2024 WL 4019318 (N.D. Fla.  Jul. 22, 2024).    

The plaintiff alleged that he was infected with tuberculosis from an unfortunately contaminated human tissue allograft that was implanted in his spine during surgery. The plaintiff alleged

One of those experts was plaintiff himself—an emergency room doctor with a law degree.  We all know what they say about lawyers who represent themselves.  And that applies equally to doctors who try to act as their own causation experts.  Add to that destructive testing after telling defendant no product existed and four more unreliable

This is our second go round with Vardouniotis v. Pfizer, Inc., Case No. 152029/2019 (N.Y. Sup.).  When we posted about the court’s decision on defendant’s motion to dismiss, we were resigned to shrug our shoulders and accept that “nothing’s perfect.”  It’s two years later and we’re still shrugging.

After the court allowed plaintiff’s negligence; gross