This post is a follow-up of sorts to our “Stupid Expert Tricks” post. That post dealt with dodgy games that our opponents’ experts play. This post is about adding injury to insult, that is, when the plaintiffs try to make us pay for the privilege of dealing with those tricks.
Now both our
Recently, Bexis was contacted by a reporter who had read the blog’s post on ghostwriting. Bexis explained that people at the top of any profession – medical, legal, engineering, whatever – have more reasons opportunities to publish than they could possibly have time to write from scratch on their own. Judges have law clerks,
Summer can be a good time to catch up on tv shows we missed the first time around (e.g., Dead to Me, Luther series 5, and Catch-22). It can also be a good time to catch up on cases we somehow failed to flag when they came out earlier in the year. We won’t beat
Donald Rumsfeld once justified attacking Iraq without firm evidence that his target possessed the ultimately apocryphal “weapons of mass destruction” by citing fear of the unknown:
Reports that say that something hasn’t happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also
Here is the third and final part of our 50-state opus on precedent supporting the principle that plaintiffs asserting claims dependent on propositions that ordinary people aren’t expected to know must come forward with expert opinions for those propositions. As mentioned previously, this project arose from something we read about in the Mirena litigation –
What follows is the second part of our extensive 50-state of cases precluding plaintiffs from proceeding with claims in the absence of admissible expert support. Part One was last week. In most states such rulings originated in medical malpractice and workers’ compensation actions, with the relevant principles broadening to encompass product liability and toxic torts.
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.