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
ND Illinois Holds that FDA Guidance Preempts Sugar-Free Yogurt Case
Franco v. Chobani, LLC, 2025 WL 1530996 (N.D. Ill. May 29, 2025) is a relatively rare preemption win in a court controlled by occasionally iffy Seventh Circuit law. It is also a food case, not a drug or device case. There is a lot of food-specific discussion (about different molecular structures of “sugar”). That
Don’t Say “Disingenuous”
Cordero v. Olson Assocs. P.C., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91994, 2025 WL1383217 (D. Utah May 13, 2025), is just another FDCA case. Except it is not the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act that is in controversy, but, rather, the Fair Debt Collection Act. The plaintiff sued several defendants, including law firms, for allegedly unlawful debt
Criminal Liability is Different from Product Liability
Bexis knows that cases like Daughtry v. Silver Fern Chemical, Inc., 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 11431, 2025 WL 1364806 (5th Cir. May 12, 2025), hit our sweet spot. It is a civil case, but it also emits a whiff of criminal law. It purports to be, among other things, a product liability case, but it turns