As evidenced by our PMA Preemption Score Card, on which today’s case became the 651st entry, defendant manufacturers of FDA-approved Class III medical devices generally do pretty well with preemption motions. But plaintiffs keep filing PMA medical device complaints, so we’ll keep posting about them.
Which brings us to today’s case, Arnold v.
We don’t usually blog about statute of limitations cases because the issues tend be state and fact specific. But Boyd v. Allergan PLC, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115779 (D. Org. Jul. 6, 2023) addresses a fact situation we see repeated often enough in medical device cases that we thought it was worth reporting on.
In this week when we celebrate the founding of our country, other than a case from Philadelphia, second best would be to talk about Virginia. It’s the home of the first English settlement, where the first Thanksgiving was held, and was home to eight U.S. Presidents. And drug and device defense lawyers have some pretty
We step outside the drug and device world today to report on Davis v. Cranfield Aerospace Solutions, Limited, — F4th –, 2023 WL 4141670 (9th Cir. Jun. 23, 2023), because if you substitute FDA for FAA in this case it is precedent for precluding personal jurisdiction over FDA consultants and others who assist
A little less than three years ago we posted about a decision by a federal court in Pennsylvania that twisted Texas and Supreme Court precedent to find an independent claim for failure to test under Texas law. So, we could not resist blogging about a Texas court reaching the exact opposite conclusion.
Earlier this year
There are approximately 1.4 million people currently serving in the United States military and 16.5 million US military veterans—and we thank them all for their service. In prescription medical product liability litigation, especially in MDLs and mass torts, that means defendants are more likely than not to run into plaintiffs who received at least some
Today’s case is Thelen v. Somatics, LLC, 2023 WL 3338221 (M.D. Fla. May 5, 2023). It is a straightforward products liability case involving a medical device used in electro-convulsive therapy. Plaintiff alleges the device caused a permanent neurological injury, memory loss, and brain damage and that the manufacturer is liable for failure to warn
This post is from the non-Reed Smith side of the blog.
Today would not be the first time that we complained about current MDL processes and the need for changes that embrace early and rigorous vetting of plaintiffs’ claims. There is no dispute that MDLs contain an abundance of meritless claims and, therefore there should
Last week we told you about two decisions in the In re Acetaminophen − ASD-ADHD Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 3043, that were improvements over last November’s debacle of a preemption decision. Today we report on a decision that makes it a trilogy. We are still reserving judgment, but with hope.
This MDL is
Last year, the federal court decision to exclude plaintiffs’ general causation expert in the In re: Onglyza and Kombiglyze XR Products Liability Litigation, MDL 2809 (E.D. Ken.),took a spot in our top ten best of 2022 (original post on that decision here). Without a general causation expert, it is not surprising that summary judgement