The California Court of Appeal has finally filed its opinion in the much-discussed talc ovarian cancer case, Echeverria v. Johnson & Johnson, No. B286283, 2019 WL 3001626 (Cal. Ct. App. July 9, 2019), and while it is not a complete win for the defense, it was close, and there is much to talk about.
Vaccine Act Dismissal Affirmed—An Intended Component Cannot Be A “Contaminant”
We received positive feedback on our recent post on the Vaccine Act, so a recent Sixth Circuit opinion affirming a dismissal under the Act caught our eye. In our last post, we described how the Vaccine Act sets up a no-fault claims process that claimants have to exhaust before they can sue in a
A Money-For-Nothing Pharmaceutical Class Action In California
We continue to scratch our heads over consumer class actions seeking monetary compensation when the customers received exactly what they paid for. We see them from time to time in the pharmaceutical space, where patients claim monetary compensation even though the prescription drugs they used worked like they were supposed to with no adverse reactions.
This Is Why Communications With Consultants Are (Or Are Not) Privileged And Protected
This is the second in a two-part series on attorney-client privilege and work product protection. We did not plan it this way, but our recent This Is Why Board Presentations Are Privileged And Protected blogpost generated a lot of interest, and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued an important opinion last week on these topics, so
This Is Why Board Presentations Are Privileged And Protected
It is a fairly common situation. A company is facing an issue that someone thinks the board of directors ought to know about, so general counsel retains outside counsel to provide advice. Maybe outside counsel prepares a memo. Maybe he or she appears at a board meeting to give a presentation with others from the
No Duty to Report to FDA in North Carolina, No “Parallel” Claim
We take every chance we can get to drive nails into the coffin of the Ninth Circuit’s spectacularly wrong opinion in Stengel v. Medtronic. That’s the case where the court held that federal law did not preempt negligence claims alleging that the defendant medical device manufacturer failed adequately to report adverse events to the
Another Blow Against “Loose And Spurious” Personal Jurisdiction In Missouri
Bexis is going to have to give up saying that nothing good ever comes out of Missouri, because for the second time in just a few months we are reporting on a well-reasoned opinion from Missouri that comes to the right result for the right reasons. In Fullerton v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., No.
Plaintiff Has To Pay Retail For Medical Device Exemplars
We’re writing a quick-hit post today on a topic that comes up often in medical device litigation, but rarely results in a court order—what happens when the plaintiffs want an “exemplar” medical device? How do they get one and who pays for it?
We’re not talking here about the medical device that was actually used
Warning Causation Sinks Another Generic “Failure To Update” Claim
It’s Delaware week here at the DDL Blog. A couple of days ago we brought you a particularly clear-minded order rejecting innovator liability in the First State (so nicknamed because Delaware was the first of the original 13 colonies to ratify the Constitution in 1787), and yesterday we reported on a pair of Delaware orders
Baseless Vaccine Autism Lawsuit Dismissed
Sometimes judges save what they really want to say for the end of their orders; and sometimes, even when one side clearly and justifiably prevails in a lawsuit, there are no winners. That is the sad tale of Doe v. Merck & Co., No. 16-CV-04005, 2019 WL 1298270 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 21, 2019), which represents