Here is a brief and happy follow up to our stupid expert tricks redux post. That post by Bexis involved a purported talc plaintiff-side expert who authored what could charitably be called a “junk science” medical article (now two such articles) on cosmetic talc causation of mesothelioma. This “research” (we grin as we write that
Drowsy Cold Medicine Consumer Fraud Case Sleepwalks Past Preemption
Long ago, a senior partner told us that clear writing flows from clear thinking. That might be so, but clear thinking and clear writing do not necessarily produce the correct result. For example, you’d have a tough time finding a legal opinion written more clearly than Calchi v. Topco Assocs., LLC, 2024 U.S. Dist.
Fat Cell Slurry is a Drug
United States v. Cal. STEM Cell Treatment Cntr., Inc., 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 24525 (9th Cir. 2024), is not, strictly speaking, a product liability case at all. But it hits several of our personal sweet spots. For example, it is from the Ninth Circuit, where we clerked for Judge Norris. It involves another
SDNY Dismisses Glucose Monitoring Device False Claims Act Case
United States ex rel. Powell v. Medtronic, Inc., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 165116 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 12, 2024), is an interesting defense win in a False Claims Act (FCA) case involving alleged off-label use – reuse of single use devices (actually a component of a device – and that ends up mattering). Much of
Combatting Overpriced Plaintiff Experts
Whoever said “you get what you pay for” never deposed a plaintiff expert. Most plaintiff experts we’ve encountered acquired their expertise – if that’s what you want to call it – not in any substantive area but, rather, in slinging junk science hash at juries with a straight, and maybe even solemn, face. As if
Welcome to Hell
Plaintiff lawyers read this blog, which we like. Criticism occasionally comes our way because the blogposts – horrors! – harbor a particular point of view. And that point of view occasionally gets recharacterized as bias or an admission against our clients. Such recharacterizations are invariably nonsensical. So far, they have never obtained even a foothold
MDL Common Benefit Funds Cannot Pilfer from Non-MDL Cases
In re Hair Relaxer Mkt. Practices & Prods. Liab. Litig., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 150916 (N.D. Illinois Aug. 22, 2024), is a fairly interesting decision on MDL procedure. We say “fairly” because the case is mostly a matter of voyeurism for defense hacks. The case is about how lead plaintiff counsel get paid. Nobody
N.D. Illinois Holds that Natural Water Class Action is all Wet
One of the break-through moments in the first year of law school is when your Contracts professor distinguishes actionable promises from mere “puffery.” Not every statement invites reliance. You cannot take every statement by a seller literally. The concept of non actionable puffery is the law’s way of telling us to grow up, to get
Bair Hugger MDL Court Dismisses Cases for Failures to File Timely Suggestions of Death
We are in the midst (at least we hope we are that far) of wrapping up an MDL settlement. As is typical, the settlement envisions a minimum participation rate After all, why would a client fling a fat wad of cash at plaintiffs’ counsel, only later to fling not-quite-as-fat-wads at their own counsel to continue
Gardasil MDL Court Dismisses Plaintiffs Who Had Not Timely Filed in Vaccine Court
We are not speaking for anyone else (clients, colleagues, our firm, etc.) when we say that drug and device product liability cases should be patterned after the Vaccine Act (42 U.S.C. Section 300aa-1 et seq.). It is faster, fairer, more predictable, and cheaper for everyone. From the defense side, we like that actions under the