More than once have we taken note of the current plaintiff lawyer infatuation with enlisting “independent” (ha ha ha) laboratories that will manage to detect contaminants in any drug, cosmetic, or puddle of unicorn tears. For example, see our coverage of the Zantac MDL magnum opus ruling where the court was less than impressed by
Quick – when’s the last time that a federal court of appeals certified a pro-plaintiff ruling to the relevant state supreme court?
We don’t remember either.Continue Reading Alternative Design Issue Certified to West Virginia High Court
When we see a court dismiss a pharma product liability case on preemption grounds, we simply have to write about it. Otherwise, we’d be required to turn in our bar card, our defense hack card, and our friendly neighborhood DDL blogger card.
In Polson v. AstraZeneca Ltd. Partnership, 2023 WL 2770687 (D. Conn.
Second chances, sure. Two bites at the apple, we see it all the time. Three strikes before you are out, fairly common. But a fourth amended complaint to cure basic pleading deficiencies? That seems overly generous by any standards. Well, almost any standards because that is what plaintiff got in Greenwood v. Arthrex, Inc.
In updating chapter three of his book, on non-informational causes of action, Bexis had the opportunity to add the last several years of “alternative design” opinions. Quite a few states, as well as the Third Restatement of Torts, require plaintiffs alleging design defects to identify a “feasible” alternative design for the product as a prerequisite for asserting a design defect claim. Even where an alternative product design is not mandatory, plaintiffs frequently offer such evidence. In product liability litigation generally, plaintiffs have been allowed to invent all kinds of “alternative” designs as long as some “expert” opines that the design (even if never before marketed) is “feasible.”
But in prescription medical product liability litigation, products must receive FDA approval, clearance or other authorization (hereafter, collectively referred to as “approval” for short) before they can be marketed. Thus, as a matter of logic and semantics, “feasibility” would seem to demand that any proposed “alternative” to the existing design of a product subject to FDA scrutiny must likewise have passed the same level of FDA scrutiny. For several decades – starting with plaintiffs’ pre-Vaccine Act attacks on vaccine designs – courts have addressed FDA approval as a component of “feasibility” in states that impose this limitation on design defect claims.Continue Reading The FDA and Feasible Alternative Designs
Back in the antediluvian era of the Bone Screw Litigation some 25 years ago, Bexis was responsible for crafting (and sometimes outright inventing, see fraud on the FDA) defenses for that then-unusual medical device-related mass tort. One of the first post-MDL-remand Bone Screw cases involved a Louisiana statute, La. Stat. Rev. §9:2800.56, requiring that, for a product to be “unreasonably dangerous in design,” the plaintiff must establish that “[t]here existed an alternative design for the product that was capable of preventing the claimant’s damage” based on the statute’s risk/utility test.Continue Reading A Primer on Alternative Design
We write in a state of annoyed frustration (so different from our normal sunshiny sweetness – lol). We have a bat mitzvah to attend next weekend – dear friend’s daughter. And we knew exactly what to wear to the evening festivities: a great dress with a skirt is slightly poufed, because it has a bit
As much as we liked those parts of In re DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., Pinnacle Hip Implant Products Liability Litigation, 888 F.3d 753 (5th Cir. 2018) (applying Texas law), that overturned a half-billion dollar verdict caused by a combination of attorney misconduct and judicial lassitude, we also recognized the problematic effects of certain other Fifth Circuit rulings in that decision. While the good parts of Pinnacle Hip were good enough to win that decision a spot in our 2018 top ten cases, that decision’s adverse aspects were bad enough that it also landed on our list of 2018’s worst ten decisions. Specifically we observed:
The most serious error the court made was refusing to apply established Texas law that comment k precludes strict liability across the board. Pinnacle Hip ignored – really ignored − a half dozen prior decisions (including one of its own) on this issue. Even if there wasn’t any precedent (which there was), expanding state-law liability where the state courts have not is not the job of a federal court sitting in diversity.
Continue Reading Comment K, Presumptions, and Medical Device Design Defects Under Texas Law
For many years, the “one-two punch” was our affectionate label for post-Mensing cases that prevent innovator liability and preempt generic liability. But it’s been several years since we’ve used the expression this way because it was so effective in knocking out those cases, we just aren’t seeing them like we used to.
We think that a product can either be in a “defective condition unreasonably dangerous” or not in a “defective condition unreasonably dangerous.” But it can’t be both. Unfortunately, the Eighth Circuit did not see things our way in deciding defendant’s appeal in Bayes v. Biomet, Inc., — F4th –, 2022 WL 17661149 (8th Cir. Dec. 14, 2022). This metal-on-metal hip implant case went to trial in October 2020 and the jury awarded plaintiff $20 million on a split verdict. The jury found in favor of defendant on strict liability design defect but for plaintiff on negligent design defect. The problem is under Missouri law, both causes of action require a finding that the product was in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous. Despite that, the Eighth Circuit was unwilling to find the verdict inconsistent or excessive.
While both causes of action require a defective condition unreasonably dangerous – in fact the exact same language was used in both jury instructions — there are differences between the claims. Which is where the court focused. In strict liability the product must be unreasonably dangerous “when put to a reasonably anticipated use.” Id. at *2. Negligence does not carry the same use requirement but rather requires a finding that the manufacturer failed to use ordinary care to design a reasonably safe product. Id. The Eighth Circuit found it was possible for the jury to have concluded there was proof the product was not used in a reasonably anticipated manner and therefore find for defendant on strict liability and against defendant on negligence which does not require the same element. Id.
Defendant argued that whether the product was put to a “reasonably anticipated use” was undisputed and should have been considered functionally stipulated. Defendant did not challenge reasonable use in its closing argument, but that was not enough for the appellate court. “The absence of contrary argument by [defendant] did not create a constructive stipulation obviating the necessity of a jury finding on an element of [plaintiff’s] claim.” Id. at *3. The court was also disinclined to defendant’s argument because at trial defendant offered evidence that the device was implanted not in the “optimal position.” So, evidence of medical misuse of the device ironically came back to disadvantage the defendant. Having introduced the evidence, the defendant could not complain on appeal that the jury might have agreed. Continue Reading Eighth Circuit Upholds Jury Verdict for Plaintiff in Hip Implant Case