We know the real quote attributable to Bill Gates is “content is king,” But as communications continue to become shorter and more compressed, context can get lost in the shuffle; and context as much as content, drives our knowledge and interactions. So, when the court in Henry v. Nissin Foods (U.S.A.) Co., opined that
In our first appellate oral argument we found ourselves in front of a very hot Ninth Circuit panel (that means lots of questions). We danced our hardest to affirm the district court’s denial of a criminal defendant’s motion to suppress. The problem was that the lower court had wandered onto shaky ground. We knew it.
Starting with our comprehensive post lambasting Schrecengost v. Coloplast Corp., 425 F. Supp.3d 448 (W.D. Pa. 2019), for ignoring 75 years of hitherto unbroken Pennsylvania precedent and allowing a “strict liability” design defect claim against an FDA-regulated prescription medical product, we have both chronicled and opposed the other side’s attempt to infiltrate strict liability into Pennsylvania litigation involving such products (primarily medical devices). That attempt disregards seven Pennsylvania Supreme Court decisions between 1948 (Henderson) and 2014 (Lance), as well as the Pennsylvania Superior Court (an intermediate appellate court in Pennsylvania) (Creazzo), all rejecting application of strict liability principles to prescription medical products. For the gory details, see the prior post.
Continue Reading Pennsylvania Law, Federal Rules, and FDA Standards
The FDA recently published its Final Guidance on REMS programs for prescription drugs, which we thought might interest our readers. The document is formally called “Format and Content of a REMS Document: Guidance for Industry” and you can download and review the Final Guidance here. You might be thinking two things at this moment:
We disagree with plenty of courts on plenty of things, but most of the time it’s at least arguably just a conflict with one of our pro-defense views. But occasionally, very occasionally, we run into a decision that’s just plain wrong on some factual or legal aspect. Blackburn v. Shire U.S., Inc., 2022 WL 16729466 (11th Cir. Nov. 7, 2022) (thankfully unpublished), is such a decision.
Two weeks ago, we decried the pattern that some courts follow in allowing shifting slates of boilerplate allegations to cases to discovery. The decision in Corrigan v. Covidien LP, No. 22-cv-10220, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 210296 (D. Mass. Nov. 21, 2022), reminded us of another of our post-TwIqbal pet peeves: when courts treat sweeping legal conclusions as if they were plausible factual assertions. The basic allegations in Corrigan were that the plaintiff’s surgeon used defendant’s surgical stapler to perform an anastomosis—reattachment of two parts of the digestive tract—in connection with removing part of his sigmoid colon (for unspecified reasons, but often diverticulitis or cancer) and the anastomosis later leaked, leading to further surgical intervention. As we said two weeks ago, medical device manufacturers are not insurers. That makes sense because surgery on humans, even done by the best surgeons, in the best hospitals, and with the best devices and equipment, has less than a 100% success rate. Anastomoses leak, infections develop, hernias recur, patients report post-operative pain, and all manner of complications and less than optimal outcomes occur. A common refrain when scientists are presented with a surgical study reporting no complications or failures is that the study was too small, too short, and/or insufficiently rigorous. Thus, a common procedure with a very high success rate will still generate large numbers of reported failures, like anastomoses that leak. This is part of why rates, and particularly comparative rates, provide more useful information about devices and surgeries than do gross numbers.
Even more authoritative sources than this Blog agree with us. FDA, for instance, makes clear that data from its Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (“MAUDE”) database “is not intended to be used either to evaluate rates of adverse events or to compare adverse event occurrence rates across devices.” The reasons for this are not a secret: “The incidence, prevalence, or cause of an event cannot be determined from this reporting system alone due to under-reporting of events, inaccuracies in reports, lack of verification that the device caused the reported event, and lack of information about frequency of device use.” Directly stated, “[t]he submission of an MDR itself is not evidence that the device caused or contributed to the adverse outcome or event.” FDA’s description of the MAUDE database also makes clear in a number of places that the data may be outdated or incomplete for various benign reasons.
Continue Reading Criticizing FDA Reporting Systems Should Not Be Enough To Plead A Warnings Claim
Today’s guest post is by Jim Fraser of Greenberg Traurig. Jim is a long-time product liability defense lawyer, but who also worked as a litigation attorney in FDA’s Office of the Chief Counsel (“OCC”). Utilizing his FDA perspective, he offers some useful suggestions on the regulatory aspects of defending drug or medical device product liability cases. As always, our guest-posters are 100% responsible for what they wrote, deserving all of the credit and (any) of the blame.
********
Lawyers defending drug and medical device companies in product liability litigation routinely deal with FDA-related issues. For example, they present expert witnesses to testify that their clients complied with the applicable regulatory requirements, they move to exclude purportedly “bad” FDA documents (e.g., FDA Form 483s and Warning Letters), and they file summary judgment motions arguing that the FDCA or FDA regulations preempt plaintiffs’ claims.
Continue Reading Guest Post – What a Product Liability Defense Lawyer Learned While Working for FDA.
Tonight, with great pleasure, we will hand out candy to tiny costumed neighbors – the three- and five-year-olds from across the street, who call us “Miss Rachel,” and the seven- and 10-year-olds from next door, who come over daily to play with the new puppy, among others. (Not too many others, we fear – we
Today’s decision comes from In re: Proton Pump Inhibitor Products Liability Litigation—an MDL pending in New Jersey. But the decision is all about the 197 Michigan plaintiffs in the MDL. The plaintiffs who either live in Michigan, got their prescription in Michigan, were diagnosed with their injury in Michigan, and/or received treatment for their
It has been just about two years since the Central District of California dismissed the claims in Nexus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Central Admixture Pharmacy Services, Inc. as impermissible attempts to privately enforce the FDCA and therefore impliedly preempted. We blogged about that decision back then. At that time, we noted that while the case arose