Duh. We apologize for the depth of our profundity, but there are some legal principles we think are really obvious. So obvious, in fact, that we might respond to question about these principles with this most dismissive of (clean) interjections. (We were somewhat surprised to learn from the interwebs that duh was supposedly first used
Just last week we updated our discussion on the 2023 amendments to Rule 702 urging our readers to start using the amendments now before their official implementation in December. That’s because the Report of the Rules Advisory Committee confirms that the change to Rule 702 is to correct the mistakes of those courts who have
We’ve chronicled the path of the 2023 amendments to Fed. R. Evid. 702 pretty much from the beginning. As we’ve discussed, those amendments reiterate what had always been (at least since 2000) the Rule’s requirements for analyzing the admissibility of expert witness testimony. But courts had been ignoring critical elements – such as the burden of proof – that had been in comments rather than the black letter of Rule 702 itself. So, as of December 2023, Rule 702 will provide that the proponent of expert testimony must meet all of the Rule’s substantive standards for admissibility by a preponderance of the evidence, and in particular that an adequate basis for such testimony is a prerequisite to admissibility.
Continue Reading Don’t Wait – The Rule 702 Amendments Can Be Used Now
We have not been terribly shy in voicing our concerns over certain practices we see in drug and device MDLs. Some of these concerns are directed to plaintiff lawyers, some to the judges overseeing the MDLs, and some to both. For instance, we think many MDL judges are far too lenient in allowing plaintiffs
As we prepare to greet 2023, we find ourselves assuming the Janus-ian posture of simultaneously looking backward and forward. Forward is more fun, as we scan a schedule full of motions, MDL decision-trees, and trials in, er, challenging jurisdictions. But it really is folly to plan the future without learning from the past. It is hard to beat Bexis’s lists of the best and worst DDL cases, the latter of which graced us last week, and the former of which will adorn this blog tomorrow, for inventorying what happened and what mattered in our area of the law in 2022. We’ve also been asked in various fora and by various inquisitors to hold forth on trends we espy. Clients and colleagues demand analyses and prognostications. We’ve also worked up presentations for ACI, DRI, and in-house CLEs. As we draw a curtain on a very interesting year (African safari, new house, introduction to pond management, Phillies World Series, and clients who gave us the gifts of trust and humor), so we’ll share some top-line observations and suspicions with you, our loyal readers:
The Zantac decision was, without a doubt, a remarkable achievement. When a judicial opinion contains over 300 pages of erudition, one tends to sit up and take notice.
What follows is from the non-Dechert side of the Blog.
In the Zantac MDL, the plaintiffs’ causation problems were plainly visible on the horizon, as we mentioned in our post last year about the Zantac ruling on medical monitoring, In re Zantac (Ranitidine) Products Liability Litigation, 546 F. Supp.3d 1152 (S.D. Fla. 2021). The Zantac MDL plaintiffs’ claims regarding risk of injury and exposure levels to purported ranitidine-derived nitrosamines (“NDMA” for short) seemed not only trivial, but in many ways bizarre (use of extreme temperatures and other parameters). They even relied on a retracted study. That’s why we referred to the “wheels coming off” the plaintiffs’ scientific case in that post.
Now the plaintiffs’ wheels are fully off in Zantac MDL – as we mentioned before, all of their causation experts for the five types of cancer that plaintiffs themselves considered the most plausible have been excluded under F.R. Evid. 702, and summary judgment entered. In re Zantac (Ranitidine) Products Liability Litigation, ___ F. Supp.3d ___, 2022 WL 17480906 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 6, 2022). This is a lengthy opinion, 341 pages in slip form. To keep this post as short as possible, we’ll be summarizing (at best) large parts of it.
Continue Reading Zantac Chronicles – Concluding Chapters in the MDL
Earlier this year we blogged about the Lone Pine order entered in the Zostavax MDL that required those plaintiffs alleging that the anti-shingles vaccine caused them to get shingles (1,189 of them) to produce evidence of specific causation by means of a PCR test. The goal of the Lone Pine order was to winnow out non-meritorious claims. That was Part 1. Defendant’s motion to dismiss all 1,189 plaintiffs because not a single one produced the required test result or even asked for an extension – that was Part 2. Without evidence of specific causation, the court dismissed about half the cases in the MDL.
Shingles are caused by the same virus that also causes chicken pox, although the adult disease shingles is much more dangerous. The virus remains in the body for life and can either lie dormant or reactivate and cause shingles. Almost everyone over the age of 30 in the United States has had chicken pox and therefore carries the “wild-type virus” in their systems. In re Zostavax Products Liability Litigation, 2022 WL 17477553, *2 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 6, 2022). The vaccine consists of the Oka strain of the virus, a live-attenuated virus that is a weakened form of the wild-type. Defendant presented “uncontradicted medical authority” that the only way to know whether a person’s shingles was caused by the wild-type virus or the Oka strain is through a PCR test. In fact, plaintiffs’ own expert testified that specific causation could only be determined with a PCR test. Id. That is the same expert who failed to perform a differential diagnosis ruling out the wild-type virus in 5 bellwether cases that were therefore dismissed on summary judgment. That is what led to the entry of the Lone Pine order. If none of the bellwether plaintiffs had sufficient causation evidence, the court wanted to know which plaintiffs did.
Continue Reading Lone Pine Stands Tall in Zostavax MDL — Part 2
In a 341-page opinion, In re Zantac (Ranitidine) Products Liability Litigation, 9:20-md-02924-RLR, slip op. (S.D. Fla. Dec. 6, 2022), the MDL court held that all of the Zantac plaintiffs’ general causation experts (concerning five cancer types) failed to meet the admissibility standards of Fed. R. Evid. 702. Consequently the court granted the defendants’ motions
Three years ago we published a lengthy post, “Stupid Expert Tricks,” detailing several of the other side’s egregious attempts at passing off junk science “experts” as the real thing, along with our side’s trials and tribulations during the course of unmasking these phonies. Our rogues’ gallery contained: In In re Zofran (Ondansetron) Products Liability Litigation, 392 F. Supp.3d 179, 181-87 (D. Mass. 2019) (Zambelli-Weiner); In re 3M Bair Hugger Litigation, 924 N.W.2d 16, 19 (Minn. App. 2019) (Augustine); In re Mirena IUD Levonorgestrel-Related Products Liability Litigation (No. II), 341 F. Supp.3d 213, 222-23, 229-32 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) (Etminan); Gerke v. Travelers Casualty Insurance Co., 289 F.R.D. 316, 328-29 (D. Or. 2013) (Painter); McClellan v. I-Flow Corp., 710 F. Supp.2d 1092, 1119-25 (D. Or. 2010) (Matsen); Nelson v. Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co., 1998 WL 1297690, at *4, 7-8 (W.D. Tenn. Aug. 31, 1998), aff’d, 243 F.3d 244 (6th Cir. 2001) (Kilburn); and Wade-Greaux v. Whitehall Laboratories, Inc., 874 F. Supp. 1441, 1559-62 (D.V.I. 1994), aff’d mem., 46 F.3d 1120 (3d Cir. 1994) (Gilbert).
We’ve found another one – this time from talc litigation.
We write on the heels of a long weekend layered with dogs and fun. The National Dog Show, which you may have watched on TV yesterday, is held about ten minutes from our house, and a fabulous corded Standard Poodle named Joel, who just happens to be “family” (he is the sire of our gorgeous puppy, Luca) won Best of Opposite Sex two days running (and stayed overnight with us). And two out-of-town handlers we know unexpectedly needed a place to exercise their charges, so we twice got to stand in our back yard while no fewer than seven show dogs, from ten pounds to 150 pounds, swirled around us. We can’t imagine being much happier.
Layers of good mark today’s case, as well. Arevalo v. Mentor Worldwide LLC, et al., 2022 WL 16753646 (11th Cir. Nov. 8, 2022), is a decision on the appeal of a Northern District of Florida decision we liked very much. Arevalo is a pelvic mesh case. The plaintiff alleged that mesh devices implanted to treat her stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse caused her to undergo mesh removal surgery and to suffer a familiar litany of injuries. The plaintiff’s general and specific causation expert was the ubiquitous Dr. Bruce Rosenzweig. Among numerous other motions, the defendant moved to exclude Dr. Rosenzweig’s specific causation opinion as unreliable because Dr. Rosenzweig did not perform an adequate differential diagnosis. The court granted the motion and excluded the specific causation opinions, holding that Dr. Rosenzweig “did not explain how he systematically and scientifically ruled out the other potential causes for the plaintiff’s symptoms. Arevalo, 2022 WL 1673646 at *4. The court then granted summary judgment for the defendant because the plaintiff could not reach the jury without expert specific causation testimony. The plaintiff appealed to the Eleventh Circuit, and today’s decision is the result.
