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
Failure to Test Claim Dismissed in Texas
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
District Court Hands VA Significant Touhy Loss
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
Implied Preemption and A Lack of Evidence Strips Plaintiff’s Case Under Nebraska Law
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
Better Late Than Never . . . Unless We Are Talking About Service
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
Another Acetaminophen Step in the Right Direction
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
Onglyza — State Court Edition
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
District of Utah Recognizes Product Liability “Big Three”
When this blogger thinks about the “Big Three” her mind goes to This is Us – Kevin, Kate and Randall. Admittedly, that’s not the only “Big Three.” Most people probably go to Great Britain, the United States, and the Soviet Union in World War II. But that alliance certainly was shorter than the Pearsons. Now
Context Is King — At Least for Labeling Cases in New York
We know the real quote attributable to Bill Gates is “content is king,” But as communications continue to become shorter and more compressed, context can get lost in the shuffle; and context as much as content, drives our knowledge and interactions. So, when the court in Henry v. Nissin Foods (U.S.A.) Co., opined that
Western District of New York Gives Plaintiff Fourth Try to Plead Her Claims
Second chances, sure. Two bites at the apple, we see it all the time. Three strikes before you are out, fairly common. But a fourth amended complaint to cure basic pleading deficiencies? That seems overly generous by any standards. Well, almost any standards because that is what plaintiff got in Greenwood v. Arthrex, Inc.