We aren’t pulling any punches.  We think Taylor v. Mentor Worldwide LLC, — F.3d –, 2019 WL 4941936 (11th Cir. Oct. 8, 2019) is a candidate to be one of this year’s DDL Blog bottom ten cases.  Not only was plaintiff’s expert allowed to change his opinion at trial, plaintiff was allowed to

Speaking of iffy propositions, we’re reminded of the hypothetical, hindsight-oriented questions that plaintiffs so often ask prescribing physicians:  “What if you had known X?”  “Would you have liked to know X?”  “Wouldn’t you have wanted to know Y?”  The (usually) unspoken premise of these questions is the more knowledge is always better than less –

Various plaintiff-side consortia have taken it into their heads to sue every manufacturer of so-called “novel oral anticoagulants” because these products, gasp, can cause serious, and sometime fatal, bleeding incidents.  Fortunately, on the whole the plaintiffs haven’t done so well with these cases – losing almost all the trials – because jurors can be taught

Here is the third and final part of our 50-state opus on precedent supporting the principle that plaintiffs asserting claims dependent on propositions that ordinary people aren’t expected to know must come forward with expert opinions for those propositions.  As mentioned previously, this project arose from something we read about in the Mirena litigation –

What follows is the second part of our extensive 50-state of cases precluding plaintiffs from proceeding with claims in the absence of admissible expert support.  Part One was last week.  In most states such rulings originated in medical malpractice and workers’ compensation actions, with the relevant principles broadening to encompass product liability and toxic torts. 

This post is from the non-Reed Smith side of the blog.

This blogger is just returned from Ireland where we toured castles and abbeys, drove through amazing landscapes on tiny roads with hairpin turns (can’t say enough about Connemara except that everyone should go), sang about Molly Malone and the Fields of Athenry, visited a

We have two things in common with the petitioner in Mancini v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, No 16975-13, 2019 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 16 (U.S. Tax Ct. Mar. 4, 2019).  First, we both will be filing our 2018 tax returns in about a month from now, unless of course Mr. Mancini is more on