You can find useful legal precedents in surprising places. For example, Schmidt v. Schmidt, 2025 Pa. LEXIS 389 (Pa. March 20, 2025), is an interesting off-label use decision coming in a context that that most litigants of such cases will miss: a workers’ compensation case. But if you have been following this blog, Schmidt
Tubal Ligation Clip Claims Held to be Preempted
Bergdoll v. Coopersurgical, Inc., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38300 (W.D. Mo. March 4, 2025), is a good Class III medical device preemption decision. The device was a Filshie clip, which is used to perform tubal ligations. The claim in Bergdoll is the typical one that the clip migrated and caused adverse symptoms. Bergdoll is
New York Appellate Court Reverses Denial of Summary Judgement and Holds No Duty to Warn of Someone Else’s Product
The Butler Snow contingent on the DDL blogging team had nothing to do with this post.
New York law is surprisingly good for defendants. Or maybe we’re jaded by bad experiences in other jurisdictions, and New York law manages to seem fair only by comparison. Certainly, we’d rather be in a courtroom in New York
Bair Hugger Rule 702 Disappointment Visits the Lehigh Valley
We’ve written many blogposts kvetching about rulings in the Bair Hugger Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) out in Minneapolis. See here, for example. The rulings on expert admissibility in the Bair Hugger MDL were particularly weak. But surely the rulings would be much better in our home district of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, right? And
Fourth Circuit Affirms Conviction of Doctor for Off Label Use of Medical Device
United States v. Jackson, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 1261, 2025 WL 249109 (4th Cir. Jan. 21, 2025), is a criminal case involving off-label use of a medical device. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the conviction of a doctor for violating the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, aggravated identity theft, and related offenses. The court sentenced
Court Dismisses Plaintiff’s Spinal Cord Stimulator Consumer Protection and Negligence Claims
In the litigation strategy class we teach at Penn Law, we always set aside a few minutes to go over the Aristotelian rhetoric trilogy of logos, pathos. and ethos. As you probably already know, logos is the persuasive value of an argument’s logic, pathos is the power of sympathy, and ethos refers to one’s character
W.D. Texas Finally Ends Surgical Staple Warranty Claims
Did it seem to you in law school that sometimes the hardest part of reading cases was not deciphering some obscure legal principle — say, the difference between larceny by trick and taking under false pretenses, or the Rule in Shelley’s Case, or pretty much anything in Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code —
FDCA Preemption Delivers Sweet Win for Sugar Substitute Manufacturer
When we first read what the claims were in Cohen v. Saraya USA Inc., (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 20, 2025), we thought of the old Catskills joke about the elderly couple at dinner:
Wife: “The food here has really gotten terrible.”
Husband: “Yes. And such small portions.”
The plaintiff in Cohen filed a class
D.Mass. Dumps Lanham Act claim because Statements about Drug Shortage are not Related to Qualities of the Product
In the wake of last week’s webinar that we DDL bloggers presented on the best and worst cases of 2024, we received many kind notes from clients and colleagues. The webinar was apparently a painless and – dare we say it? – even fun way to earn 1.5 CLE credits. But we also heard
W.D. Pa. Dismisses Design Defect Claims with Prejudice Based on Comment k; Dismisses Manufacturing and Warning Claims without Prejudice Based on Pleading Deficiencies
Blair v. Abbvie Inc., 2025 WL. 57198 (W.D. Pa. Jan. 9, 2025), is, from the defense perspective, a favorable opinion dismissing (some with prejudice, some with leave to amend) all counts of the plaintiff’s complaint. The opinion is a bit odd, in a semi, unintentionally-ironic sort of way, because it faults the plaintiff for