Today we bring you a terrific Daubert defense win. But, we’ll be honest it’s long. Really long. Thorough, but long. So, we’re going to hit the highlights.
The case is Davis v. McKesson Corp., 2019 WL 3532179 (D. Ariz. Aug. 2, 2019). It is a multi-plaintiff case against manufacturers and distributors of gadolinium-based contrast
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
A couple of years ago, we were overjoyed to learn that our very favorite old-fashioned Broadway musical was being revived. The lead role – a famously brassy female character – was being played by a famously brassy singer and sometime-actress we believed was perfectly cast. We bought tickets the day they went on sale, and
The California Court of Appeal has finally filed its opinion in the much-discussed talc ovarian cancer case, Echeverria v. Johnson & Johnson, No. B286283, 2019 WL 3001626 (Cal. Ct. App. July 9, 2019), and while it is not a complete win for the defense, it was close, and there is much to talk about.
Occasionally we feature court decisions that have nothing to do with prescription medical products. Dalgic v. Misericordia University, 2019 WL 2867236 (M.D. Pa. July 3, 2019), is such a case. Dalgic involved cross-motions for summary judgment in litigation about an alleged bureaucratic screw up that prevented the plaintiff (an overseas student) from remaining in
We are going to take today’s decision a little out of order because we think the outcome is fairly easily surmised from our title – plaintiff couldn’t sustain his claim because he didn’t have admissible expert testimony. But before we get to the substance of the opinion, at the end the court was called on
We aren’t exactly breaking news by saying experts are extremely important. Even make or break. That’s why everyone – on both sides – want the best. And, in more old news, doctors are expensive. Doctors who serve as experts in complex mass tort litigation can be really expensive. But, based on our opening supposition, we
We know of only a couple of cases that have allowed “experts” to testify on the subject of punitive damages. First, in the Actos litigation, the court allowed a so-called “ability to pay” expert opinion to be presented to the jury. In re Actos (Pioglitazone) Products Liability Litigation, 2013 WL 6383104, at *5 (W.D.
Court composition matters.
Yesterday, the Florida Supreme Court reversed a ruling from only last year and decided that the legislature was right (or at least within its authority) after all – henceforth the standards created in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), will govern the admissibility of expert testimony in
Having three experts couldn’t save plaintiff’s claims in Robinson v. Davol Inc., 2019 WL 275555 (7th Cir. Jan. 22, 2019). Plaintiffs’ decedent underwent surgery involving a surgical mesh patch and approximately one year later, she developed an abdominal wall abscess that led to various infections that ultimately led to her death. Id. at *2.