This post is from the non-Dechert side of the blog
Not long ago, one of our co-bloggers fielded some correspondence that, distilled from its abundant rhetoric, seemed to criticize a blog post for its defense-leaning bias. Given this, we hasten to reiterate, before we begin today’s post, that this is a defense blog. We are
With apologies to Harry Kalas.
Bexis had a couple of encounters with the “Wayback Machine” (a/k/a/ the “Internet Archive”) recently. If you don’t know what that is, it’s digital library of Internet ephemera – web pages and the like − that have since been taken down, revised, or otherwise have become unavailable in
Recently, in the context of an IVC filter case, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals certified two questions to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court:
1. Under Pennsylvania law, must a plaintiff bringing a negligent design claim against a prescription medical device manufacturer prove that the device was too harmful to be used by anyone, or may
We have been consistently critical of the MDL system for encouraging judges presiding over such massive aggregations to manipulate the applicable law to create settlement pressure on defendants. We’ve seen that with federal preemption, willingness to create novel state-law causes of action, choice of law, and trial consolidation of multiple plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs love to tell juries how horrible the defendant’s product is. They’ll tell them how the product kills people – even though the plaintiff in the case didn’t die. They’ll try to bring up purported cancer risks although the plaintiff doesn’t have cancer. They’ll argue that, if the defendant’s device were to fail, they’d face
The same Missouri Supreme Court that couldn’t be bothered to review a 22-plaintiff consolidation that resulted in a ten-figure verdict in a talc case saw fit to review a defense verdict in a pelvic mesh case. One wonders where justice stands among that court’s priorities. At least the verdict was affirmed – if only barely,
This is the third consecutive week a case from Indiana has been in our sights. By and large, we have been impressed with the quality of the Indiana judiciary in both the state and federal courts. One hallmark of exemplary judging is the capacity to revisit rulings and change course when necessary. We clerked for
Bexis has been writing amicus curiae briefs for the Product Liability Advisory Council (“PLAC”) for a long time. He was introduced to PLAC by one of the best lawyers he (or anyone, for that matter) ever met, Edward W. “Neddie” Madeira, Jr., who recently passed away. Fare thee well, Neddie, you are missed.
Back
We’ve blogged numerous times about the tentative, non-final, and informal status of FDA warning letters (and untitled letters and similar enforcement precursors like Form 483s). We’ve cited precedent, FDA internal manuals, FDA’s own position taken in formal briefing, and learned treatises on FDA law. That an FDA warning letter has no binding legal effect (indeed,
Every time we think about addressing ghostwriting as a recurrent plaintiff-side jury distraction in drug/device product liability litigation, we get earwormed by “Ghost Riders in the Sky.” Whether one prefers the Johnny Cash or Outlaws version of the song – or one of who knows how many other covers of the song (originally