Two weeks ago, we decried the pattern that some courts follow in allowing shifting slates of boilerplate allegations to cases to discovery. The decision in Corrigan v. Covidien LP, No. 22-cv-10220, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 210296 (D. Mass. Nov. 21, 2022), reminded us of another of our post-TwIqbal pet peeves: when courts treat
Bexis has already plugged the Reed Smith Life Sciences CLE programs this week, so we won’t replug — except to remind you that Rachel Weil and the drudge/author of this post will tomorrow discuss the taxonomy and tactics of warning causation. We talk in terms of taxonomy because there are so many interesting variations of the contents of the warning, the relevant audience, doctors who read, who didn’t read, who already know, and who would like to have known, as well as the rules and burdens of proof in jurisdictions around this great, over-warned country.
It turns out that Kentucky offers some good pro-defense law on warning causation but, then again, there is some weird, unnerving stuff courtesy of the Sixth Circuit. Tune in tomorrow for details. In the meantime, we (obviously) have a preference for clear rules, even though the muddy areas are (obviously) where good lawyers can make a difference and earn their money.
There’s nothing wrong with being obvious. In today’s case, Adamson v. Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 2022 WL 3448044 (W.D. Ky. Aug. 17, 2022), we get a blissfully clear and obvious ruling from a Kentucky court, and it is in our favorite legal area, preemption, to boot. The plaintiff in Adamson alleged that he suffered from Stevens-Johnson Syndrome (SJS) — a serious disease that causes the top layer of the skin to die and shed — as a result of taking generic amlodipine besylate. If you are one of those folks wrestling with hypertension, you might have some familiarity with amlodipine.
The Adamson complaint included a messy mixture of claims for failure to warn, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, defective design, and breach of warranties. The defendant moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that all the claims were preempted by federal law. The court agreed with the defendant, dismissed the complaint, and did not waste any time in doing so.
Continue Reading W.D. Kentucky Dismisses Amlodipine Claims on Preemption Grounds
This post is from the non-Reed Smith side of the blog.
Defendants in Pizzitola v. Ethicon, Inc., filed motions to exclude two of plaintiff’s experts and both decisions (two orders issued) heavily favored the defense, rejecting recurrent design defect arguments by plaintiffs.
The product at issue is synthetic pelvic mesh. Plaintiff’s first challenged expert was a gynecologic surgeon. While is area of practice may overlap with issues in the case, his report went well beyond both relevant issues and his area of expertise. Namely, plaintiff’s expert wanted to opine that lots of things were alternative designs that in fact were not. Starting with a different medical procedure altogether. “It is not an alternative design of any product. In fact, it is not a product at all.” Pizzitola I, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 184352, *6 (S.D. Tex. Oct. 7, 2022). Plaintiff argued the testimony was relevant to a risk/utility analysis but showing that a different medical procedure may be safer, “does not affect whether a product has utility and/or risks.” Id. at *7. The decision to perform a different medical procedure lies within the medical judgment of the treating surgeon and has no bearing on the design of the device at issue. Id.
Continue Reading Two Strikes Against Plaintiff’s Experts in Texas Pelvic Mesh Case
We have written quite a few posts about litigation over inferior vena cava filters made by various companies. Most of those posts focused on decisions in cases pending in or remanded after a stint in one of two MDLs. Broadly speaking, those decisions involved filters intended to remain in place permanently and alleged injuries from
Maybe we have been doing this too long. Or maybe, like the prequels, spinoffs, and reboots that are so prevalent among streaming entertainment options, there is just a lot of repetition. In serial product liability cases, we hope that repetition leads to consistency of results or at least predictable rules of the game. Consider the
This post is from the non-Dechert side of the blog.
After more than a month away at trial, we probably should not have picked a case that hit so close to home, so to speak. Spear v. Atrium Medical Corp., — F. Supp. 3d –, 2022 WL 3357485 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 12, 2022), is
Earlier this week, we spoke of the impending birth of our soon-to-be standard poodle puppy. We are delighted to report that the puppies are being born as we type this! Eight are expected (e-mail us and we will send you a cool x-ray that shows all eight in utero – count the spines and
Perhaps not as menacing as Lions and Tigers and Bears (Oh my) – but feasible, adequate, and effective proved to be too much for plaintiff in Davis v. Johnson & Johnson, 2022 WL 2115075 (Jun. 9, 2022).
It is a remanded pelvic mesh case. On defendant’s motion to exclude certain testimony by plaintiff’s expert, most
We have written a number of posts about pelvic mesh cases over the years. Some of us have also worked on a number of cases. At this point, many cases have gone from MDL to local district court to judgment to appeal. Over time, the tide seems to have turned. That could be because the
This is a follow-up post on the case of Knapp v. Zoetis, Inc. – an animal drug case. While not our typically fare, it is still a prescription drug case involving adverse event reporting to the FDA and the learned intermediary doctrine. So, while this patient had four legs instead of two, the legal framework