Critics have been known to accuse us of being too hard on product liability plaintiffs and too forgiving of defendants who develop medical products.  We all have our biases, especially after many collective decades of representing the latter group, but we do think the table is often tilted in favor of the former group.  One

Albert Einstein supposedly said, “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”  He may not have, but the point is well taken.  We often think the same thing – particularly about plaintiffs that sue manufacturers of FDA premarket-approved (“PMA”) medical devices with vague, boilerplate complaints.  Haven’t they heard about

Could a tax case ever make for interesting reading? To our surprise, the answer is Yes. In our end-of-year excavation of older cases we missed when they first came out, we unearthed Rowitz v. Tax Commisioner of Ohio, 2019 WL 7489061 (Ohio Ct. App. Dec. 31, 2019). The plaintiffs in that case applied for

Perhaps the biggest conflict among the circuits in PMA preemption cases involves the extent to which plaintiffs can get away with pleading essentially nothing to support supposed “parallel” violation claims, on the one hand, or on the other must plead a particularized violation of an FDA regulation (usually a “Current Good Manufacturing Practice” or “CGMP”)

The decision in In re Bard IVC Filters Products Liability Litigation, 969 F.3d 1067 (9th Cir. 2020) (“Booker”), is yet another reminder that multidistrict litigation as it is currently conducted is a fundamentally flawed process, dedicated more to forcing settlements than to any of the goals envisioned by Congress when it passed

A great woman once said “When they go low, we go high.”  Apropos of nothing in particular these days, we have been thinking about the issue of tone recently.  For instance, what is the exact line between a negative political advertisement and a positive one?  Are there circumstances where a candidate might suspend negative ads

Most of the controversy in the recent decision, Hill v. Bayer Corp., 2020 WL 5367334 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 8, 2020), revolved around whether the plaintiff could assert a cause of action for failure to report adverse product events to the FDA.  Like the great majority of decisions (particularly since Conklin v. Medtronic, Inc.,