Photo of Michelle Yeary

We haven’t see too many of these.  The reason for that is the gadolinium litigation is practically a textbook example of where federal law ought to preempt state-law product liability claims of all kinds—including both design defect claims and failure-to-warn claims.  Just search gadolinium on the blog and you’ll find plenty of cases dismissed on

It’s a case that pre- and post-dates the IVC Filters MDL– Ocasio v. C.R. Bard, Inc., 2020 WL 3288026 (M.D. Fla.  Jun. 18, 2020).   In fact, this case got through summary judgment and Daubert rulings in Florida before being transferred to the MDL in Arizona in 2015.  Upon its return to Florida, only two

If, like this blogger, you had small children in the early 2000s, subconsciously you may have read today’s title with a Scottish brogue.  That’s because it might recall a scene from Shrek where Mike Myers (Shrek) and Eddie Murphy (Donkey) are having a philosophical conversation about the many and varied attributes of ogres.  “Ogres are

Earlier this year we posted about the decision on defendant’s motion to dismiss in Crockett v. Luitpold Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 2020 WL 433367 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 28, 2020).  We called it a “patchwork” decision, meaning we generally liked it but it wasn’t a seamless defense victory.  Well, the court ruled on another defense motion just this

This has been an important concept in the gadolinium litigation and it delivered another preemption win in Javens v. GE Healthcare Inc., 2020 WL 2783581 (D. Del. May 29, 2020).  The changes being effected (“CBE”) label change process has strict limitations on when it can be used to add or amend warnings without prior

Two and half years ago we posted about a favorable California Superior Court ruling in the Risperdal and Invega Product Liability Cases litigation finding plaintiffs’ claims were preempted because there was no newly acquired information on which to base a CBE label change and because the FDA had rejected the proposed label change already.  We

Just a few months ago we blogged about cloned discovery pointing out that in a world of already asymmetrical discovery burdens on defendants, allowing plaintiffs to magnify that discrepancy by forcing defendants to reproduce discovery from prior cases is an abusive process.  We stand by that position and are happy to add to the list

Today’s case is about the clash between these two basic rules.  Before we get to the rules, we look at how we get there.  A standard defense discovery request in any personal injury litigation is:  how much are your medical bills?  This is routinely followed by:  do you have any medical liens, and if so