A couple of weeks ago we compared New Jersey litigation with New Jersey food and decided we liked the food better. No aspersions were intended. After all, we grew up in New Jersey and still worship at the altars of Seton Hall Prep, Bruce Springsteen, and the New York football Giants. Anyway, we might need
Today’s guest post is by Reed Smith‘s Jenn Eppensteiner. In it she discusses a recurring theme on the Blog – claimed product “defects” arising from nothing more than the failure of an implanted medical device. Case after case has recognized that the human body is a hostile environment for implants, surrounded by the
This post is from the Reed Smith side of the blog only.
Yesterday was National Punctuation Day; it is a good time to administer a semi-colonic to turgid prose. Today we apply an exclamation mark to our unhappiness with judges whose choice of law principles seem not so, er, principled.
Last Thursday, Bexis commented on
We were in western Tennessee last week for an argument. We stayed at a beautiful and venerable hotel, most famous for twice-daily “march of the ducks.” Every morning, at 11 a.m. sharp (at least 30 minutes after guests have packed the lobby), an elevator door opens, and a uniformed “duck master” leads a perfect procession
One size does not in fact fit all. Cookie cutters are great for ensuring uniformity. The type of uniformity you want on a beautiful dessert tray. Uniform size, shape, and color appeal to the eye. It’s precise. It’s inviting. And while the term “mass tort” may conjure up the image of complaint after complaint stamped
We had been waiting for the Utah Supreme Court’s decision in Burningham v. Wright Medical for some time. As we pointed out in a blogpost when Burningham was first certified by the district court (Utah is one of the few courts allowing district court certification), over a year ago, “[p]ractically no court has . .
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. A jack of all trades is a master of none. These cutesy little phrases throw some derision toward one who possesses some knowledge in a bunch of areas. Representing drug and device companies in litigation can make a lawyer reject the negative interpretation of these phrases. We have
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.
We recently blogged about the final chapter (at the district court level, anyway) of the big defense win in the Mirena MDL. The long-overdue result was entry of summary judgment for the defendant against all claims. As the blog also chronicled, the key Mirena decision had been earlier – and was already appealed and