Three times previously we have “reported from the front” on the federal government’s efforts to dismiss False Claims Act litigation – ostensibly (and often ostentatiously) filed in the government’s name – after the government has concluded that the particular case is more bother than it is worth. The most recent of those posts was late last year, and reported on Polansky v. Executive Health Resources, Inc., 17 F.4th 376 (3d Cir. 2021).
The Orthopedic Bone Screw litigation would never have occurred – and Bexis might never have found his way to prescription medical product liability litigation – if not for the Kessler-era FDA’s ill-considered salami slicing of the “intended use” of that product. In that instance, the FDA had limited its cleared “intended use” to disc spaces
We begin with the news that the Drug and Device Law Rock Climber has a new puppy. He is six months old and already over 60 pounds – a rescued Australian Shepherd mix. He is also white with blue eyes, a color pattern linked to deafness in dogs and cats. And he is totally deaf,
The defense response to so many plaintiff allegations amounts to: so what? What difference did the complained of conduct make? Think of medical causation. Or think of warning causation in the context of a learned intermediary. In securities cases or, closer to our DDL hearts, False Claims Act cases, the ‘so what’ arrives dressed in
We’ve already provided two “reports from the front” about how the federal government is faring in False Claims Act cases where it has moved to dismiss actions over the objections of the relators supposedly pursuing recovery in the government’s name. Here’s a third one, about Polansky v. Executive Health Resources, Inc., ___ F.4th ___,
To bring suit in federal court, a plaintiff must have “Article III standing.” That is to say, the plaintiff must have a personal stake in the suit’s outcome. This is true whether a plaintiff is suing individually or as a member of a class.
Late last week, in TransUnion v. Ramirez, — S. Ct.
The recent appellate False Claims Act (“FCA”) decision in Dan Abrams Co. LLC v. Medtronic Inc., ___ F. Appx. ___, 2021 WL 1235845 (9th Cir. April 2, 2021), has us scratching our heads. It’s like riding a legal roller coaster. Some parts are really high, and others are really low.
Bexis first ran across
We are careful when discussing discovery sanctions, particularly spoliation, for a simple reason. The companies we represent that make medical products tend to have allegations about failing to produce discoverable information in the course of the litigation against them. Indeed, there is a style of litigating against drug and device companies, and other corporate defendants,
Not long ago we brought you a report from the False Claims Act (“FCA”) front on how the government was doing with its attempts to prune back some of the worst abuses of FCA litigation – particularly the advent of “professional relators.” In that earlier post, we discussed the two major approaches that courts
Plaintiffs’ experts do a lot of stupid things. We’ve dedicated whole posts to them – here and here, for example. Now we have another trick to add to their growing list of shenanigans – plaintiffs’ experts turn FCA relators. That’s right, two of plaintiffs’ experts from the DePuy Orthopedics hip implant litigation are trying