Almost two months ago we posted on the magistrate’s Report and Recommendation in Drescher v. Bracco Diagnostics Inc., 2020 WL 699878 (D. Ariz. Jan. 31, 2020).  Back when our co-workers didn’t include furry, four-legged friends.  When we weren’t also re-learning high school geometry.  And when pajamas and slippers weren’t acceptable work attire.  Many things

We’ve brought you some great news from the gadolinium contrast agent litigation last year and the hits just keeping on coming.  This time out of federal court in Arizona.  And while the court is giving plaintiff another stab at re-pleading her case, we are doubtful plaintiff will be able to cure the deficiencies identified in

Today is Friday, December 20, 2019, the last day on which many of our readers will be in the office before settling their brains for a long winter’s nap.  We wish you all the very best, and our holiday gift to you today is a case about candy.  Not just any candy.  Today we bring

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 –