We recently recapped the law relating to when experts are allowed to opine on what was in the head of another and how a pending Supreme Court criminal case might affect things. In our area, this issue comes up most frequently in the context of plaintiff experts trying to offer their spin about how the
As we’ve discussed, such as here, Fed. R. Civ. P. 702 was amended in late 2023, because the Civil Rules Advisory Committee concluded that too many courts were erroneously admitting expert testimony that proponents had not established was reliable. It does appear that at least some courts are cracking down. Here’s one from an Eighth Circuit court, which is significant since the Eighth Circuit was one of the worst offenders under the prior version of Rule 702.Continue Reading Frequent Flier P-Side Expert Excluded Under Amended Rule 702
Local counsel in one of our cases made it clear that unless we wanted to broadcast that we were from out of state, we needed to pronounce Oregon as “Or-gun” not “Or-ah-gone”, and we have tried to remember that tip ever since. But today’s District of Oregon case, Glover v. Avanos Med., Inc., No.
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
Alabama has always had some rather unusual jurisprudence. In product liability, the Yellowhammer State doesn’t have negligence or strict liability, but rather a hybrid called the Alabama Extended Manufacturers Liability Doctrine (“AEMLD”). See Casrell v. Altec Industries, Inc., 335 So.2d 128, 132-33 (Ala. 1976). More recently, the Alabama Supreme Court twice adopted the extreme pro-plaintiff innovator liability theory in Wyeth, Inc. v. Weeks, 2013 WL 135753 (Ala. Jan. 11, 2013), withdrawn and superseded, Wyeth, Inc. v. Weeks, 159 So.3d 649 (Ala. 2014). On that occasion, the Alabama legislature overruled the court. See Ala. C. §6-5-530. More recently than that, the same court authorized plaintiffs to perjure themselves and claim that they would have ignored their doctors’ recommendations in order to claim causation in learned intermediary cases. Blackburn v. Shire U.S., Inc., ___ So.3d ___, 2022 WL 4588887, at *11-12 (Ala. Sept. 30, 2022). Most recently, and most notoriously, the Alabama Supreme Court declared frozen embryos to be people – at least for the purposes of tort law. LePage v. Center for Reproductive Medicine, P.C., ___ So.3d ___, 2024 WL 656591, at *4 (Ala. Feb. 16, 2024). Who knows? By 2030, Alabama might attempt to count blastocysts as “people” for purposes of the census – although not for tort purposes, since the legislature appears to have stepped in again.
We read another bizarre – if not nearly as notorious – Alabama law decision recently. Ahmed v. Johnson & Johnson Healthcare Systems, Inc., 2024 WL 693078 (S.D. Ala. Feb. 20, 2024), reconsideration & certification denied, 2024 WL 947447 (S.D. Ala. March 5, 2024). What’s bizarre about it? It allowed a plaintiff in a medical device product liability case (hip implant) get to the jury without any medical expert testimony on causation. Id. at *16 (entitled “Summary Judgment is not Required on All of Plaintiff’s Claims Even Though She Offers No Expert Evidence Regarding Medical Causation”).Continue Reading Another Weird Alabama Decision
In our recent post on the Onglyza affirmance, we mentioned that the Sixth Circuit rejected the plaintiffs’ attempt at a do-over after the expert they chose to ride into battle with was unhorsed by Rule 702. The MDL plaintiffs flunked both “good cause” grounds for modifying the existing expert scheduling orders. First, plaintiffs were not
The MDL and state court proceedings involving saxagliptin-based diabetes drugs (such as Onglyza and Kombiglyze) strike us as the mass tort that never should have been. These proceedings initially followed a familiar model—a publication identified a signal of a risk (albeit an exceptionally weak signal), and plaintiffs’ lawyers took their cue to collect their inventories
We’ve blogged several times already about the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. FDA litigation that is now before the Supreme Court. Briefly, a Texas District Court, in a decision that we’ve already described as “results-driven and shoddy,” purported to invalidate more than 20 years of FDA regulation – back to and including the original
Not long ago we posted about how a turncoat expert witness who switched to the dark side had been precluded from testifying in several cases. We have another case to add to the list – King v. Depuy Orthopaedics Inc., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 223451 (D. Ariz. Dec. 15, 2023). Only this time, Plaintiff
In our recent post describing the best prescription medical product liability litigation decisions of 2023, no fewer than three of the opinions we discussed: #4 In re Acetaminophen-ASD-ADHD Products Liability Litigation, ___ F. Supp.3d ___, 2023 WL 8711617 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 18, 2023), #5 Onglyza Products Cases, 307 Cal. Rptr.3d 480 (Cal. App. 2023)
