We have not shied away from letting our readers know what we think of the Bair Hugger litigation. And it’s not good (check it out here). Plaintiffs’ latest defeat is the affirmance of a defense verdict by the Missouri Court of Appeals. O’Haver v. 3M Company, 2024 WL 3034549 (Mo. Ct. App. Jun.
We could care less about almost everything in Driver v. Naranjo, 2024 WL 2869367 (S.D. Cal. June 6, 2024), which dismissed an overly litigious pro se prisoner’s product liability and other claims involving his purportedly forced use of a prescription drug.
But Driver’s first footnote raises an interesting question of judicial notice – whether notice can extend to the “characteristics” of prescription medical products. Driver held that “[t]he Court may take judicial notice of medical facts regarding prescription drugs, their active ingredients and effects.” 2024 WL 2869367, at *1 n.1. The opinion cited two cases for that proposition, United States v. Howard, 381 F.3d 873, 880 & n.7 (9th Cir. 2004) (taking judicial notice of certain effects of a drug listed in the product warnings reprinted in the Physician’s Desk Reference (“PDR”)); and Lolli v. County of Orange, 351 F.3d 410, 419 (9th Cir. 2003) (“Well-known medical facts are the types of matters of which judicial notice may be taken.”) (citation omitted).Continue Reading Are Prescription Medical Product Characteristics Subject to Judicial Notice?
The issue of the state of mind or intent of a party can play out a number of ways based on the nature of the case. In the criminal context, proof of the mens rea of the defendant is typically an element in the statutory definition of the crime. In a civil contract case, whether
As we discussed at length in this post, since the 1940s, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and other courts applying Pennsylvania law have refused to subject prescription medical products to strict liability. That is significant because, unlike (now) every other state in the country, since 1987 Pennsylvania precedent prohibited defendants from introducing evidence of their
We had the pleasure of speaking on a panel at ACI last week, including discussion of the terrific order from the Zantac MDL excluding all the plaintiffs’ general causation experts. That order essentially did away with an entire MDL and came in fourth on our list of best decisions of 2022 . Our thoroughly enjoyable
We’ve finished reading through the New Jersey Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in Hrymoc v. Ethicon, Inc., ___ A.3d ___, 2023 WL 4714042 (N.J. July 25, 2023) (which should really be captioned “McGinnis” because plaintiff Hrymoc settled, see n.1). The good – really good – news is that an abusively obtained nuclear ($68 million+) verdict goes bye-bye. That alone is grounds for celebration.Continue Reading Perfect Defense §510(k) Compliance Win in New Jersey May Be Pyrrhic
Shortly after we recently posted our 50-state survey of state law concerning expert “gatekeeping,” we received a thoughtful email from friend-of-the-Blog Tom Hurney, of Jackson Kelly, informing us that there were additional gatekeeping-related issues in West Virginia that our search – limited to cases using the word “gatekeeping” – did not reflect. His
Kelley v. C.R. Bard, Inc., 2023 WL 2565853 (N.D. Ga. March 17, 2023), reconsideration denied, 2023 WL 3032063 (N.D. Ga. April 21, 2023), became the latest decision to follow what used to be (before the Pelvic Mesh litigation used the law in this area as a settlement tool) the overwhelming majority rule, that FDA decisions to allow products to be marketed – including §510(k) clearance – were routinely admissible.Continue Reading Another Decision Admitting Evidence of FDA §510(k) Clearance
A little while ago, Bexis attended a Lawyers for Civil Justice semi-annual meeting, at which he received that organization’s “Outstanding Contributor Award” (in full disclosure, so did a half dozen other members). With the soon-to-be-adopted amendments to Fed. R. Evid. 702 having now been approved by the Supreme Court (with only the unlikely step of a congressional veto remaining), the question was what happens next.
These amendments expressly enshrine the expert “gatekeeper” function in the text of Rule 702. The next step is whether they can be duplicated – or paralleled − in state rules of evidence. We think that they can, and for a state (like Pennsylvania and a number of others) that still follows the “Frye” standard looking to the “general acceptance” of expert testimony as the touchstone to admissibility, a Rule 702 state-law equivalent might look something like this:Continue Reading 50-State Survey of State Court Decisions Supporting Expert-Related Judicial Gatekeeping
Starting with our comprehensive post lambasting Schrecengost v. Coloplast Corp., 425 F. Supp.3d 448 (W.D. Pa. 2019), for ignoring 75 years of hitherto unbroken Pennsylvania precedent and allowing a “strict liability” design defect claim against an FDA-regulated prescription medical product, we have both chronicled and opposed the other side’s attempt to infiltrate strict liability into Pennsylvania litigation involving such products (primarily medical devices). That attempt disregards seven Pennsylvania Supreme Court decisions between 1948 (Henderson) and 2014 (Lance), as well as the Pennsylvania Superior Court (an intermediate appellate court in Pennsylvania) (Creazzo), all rejecting application of strict liability principles to prescription medical products. For the gory details, see the prior post.Continue Reading Pennsylvania Law, Federal Rules, and FDA Standards