We recently returned from our summer vacation in a small European country with a tiny but charming coastline, formidable mountains, abundant vineyards, and relentlessly friendly service. That last bit serves as a clumsy segue into today’s case, Aguila v. RQM+LLC, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 155232 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 12, 2025), which is mostly about
PMA Preemption of Manufacturing Defect Claim: Long Time Coming
Federal preemption of tort claims involving medical devices receiving premarket approval (PMA) is a powerful defense. But for some reason, there are plaintiff lawyers who think it does not apply, or barely applies, to claims for manufacturing defect. That is bad enough. When courts buy into that misconception, it is even worse. It takes clear
Three Strikes and You’re Out
Surely, you’ve heard the definition of insanity as repeating the same conduct but expecting different results. You might also have heard that Einstein said it, though that might not be right – not even relatively right.
It is definitely not right for plaintiffs to keep filing meritless actions even after they keep receiving benchslaps. Maybe
Maryland Upstream Implied Indemnification
Keralink Intl., Inc. v. Stradis Healthcare, LLC, 2025 WL 1947764 (4th Cir. 2025), is a rare published appellate decision on common-law implied indemnity in the context of prescription medical product liability litigation. The case involves two commercial intermediate seller parties already held liable to a buyer of the product (corneal eyewash) that had been
Plaintiff Talc Expert Must Disclose Subject Names in Article
”He that violates his oath profanes the divinity of faith itself.” — Cicero.
It might seem unlikely that, long ago, we noticed the above maxim inscribed on the south side of the Los Angeles City Hall while walking to our first jury trial (almost as unlikely as the fact that we were walking in L.A.). It
How Specific Do Affirmative Defenses Need to Be?
In Chock v. Stryker Corp., 2025 WL 1797933 (E.D. Cal. June 30, 2025), the plaintiff mounted a TwIqbal attack against the defendant’s affirmative defenses and largely lost. The court’s opinion is short and to the point, and offers lessons. The case is particularly useful, as many of the pleaded items at issue are common. Most importantly
No Religious Exemption for Refusal of Covid-19 Vaccine Based on Specific Mechanism
What is the meaning of our brief time on Earth? is there life after death? Is there a God? If so, why would The Almighty permit so much wickedness and suffering in the world? How can one explain the existence of contention interrogatories?
Unlike the Drug and Device Law Daughter, who attended Divinity School, we
SCOTUS Permits Retailers to Appeal Denial of FDA Disapproval of Vaping Products
Skrmetti (upholding Tennessee statute forbidding gender dysphoria treatments for minors) was the SCOTUS case that got the most publicity last week, but we drug and device lawyers will always perk up most when we see the High Court issue a ruling regarding the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). That is probably one reason (though surely
Vermont Court Shuts Down State’s Broad (and Late) (and Crazy) Discovery Demands
Wouldn’t it be nice if all legal disputes could be sensible? But, alas, overreaching plaintiffs make work, make motions, and often make craziness. Sometimes those overreaching plaintiffs can be the government, and that makes things even worse.
In Hayek Medical Devices (N.Am.) v. Vermont, 2025 Vt. Super. LEXIS 117, 2025 LX 12055 (Vt. Super.
Restatement (Third) Reconsidered
Today we offer a peek at A. Twerski, “A Quarter Century after the Products Liability Restatement: Reflections,” 90 Brooklyn L. Rev. 1027 (Summer 2025). The “Restatement” under discussion is the Restatement (Third), Products Liability, and the “A. Twerski” is, of course, Aaron Twerski, the sole surviving reporter for that Restatement. Professor Twerski has written this retrospective law review