We were talking the other day with a colleague with whom we have been in the mass tort trenches for most of the last 20 years, and she observed that “it’s not about the tort anymore.”  Well, it is, and it isn’t.  We still see cases, sometimes in very large numbers, involving drugs and medical

Some things were never meant to go together.  Oil and water.  Ice cream and ketchup.  Harry Potter and Lord Voldemort (although fans of the books will quickly point out that Boy Who Lived was actually linked inextricably to his arch enemy).  Picnics and honey bees.  Elected officials and the power to borrow money.  You get

To bring suit in federal court, a plaintiff must have “Article III standing.” That is to say, the plaintiff must have a personal stake in the suit’s outcome. This is true whether a plaintiff is suing individually or as a member of a class.

Late last week, in TransUnion v. Ramirez, — S. Ct.

One of the intriguing things about cases decided by a jurisdiction’s highest court is that pronouncements by such courts can often have far-reaching implications.  Sometimes they pan out, as the application of the First Amendment to the FDA’s ban on off-label promotion seems to be doing following Sorrell v. IMS Health, Inc., 564 U.S.

In Knapp v. Zoetis Inc., 2021 U.S. Dist. Lexis 63783 (E.D. Va. March 31, 2021), the plaintiff alleged that administration of an equine antibiotic caused his horse, Boomer, to experience “persistent lameness” and permanent damage to the “musculature in his neck.” Boomer was not okay. His condition was far from stable.

The plaintiff claimed

Critics have been known to accuse us of being too hard on product liability plaintiffs and too forgiving of defendants who develop medical products.  We all have our biases, especially after many collective decades of representing the latter group, but we do think the table is often tilted in favor of the former group.  One

Procedural considerations often decide cases.  Sometimes, weighty legal issues are reached through quirky procedural routes.  When it comes to whether state tort law provides medical monitoring as a remedy for people who do not have a present compensable injury, that is a legal (and policy) issue.  We have written many times that we think foundational