A plaintiff lawyer recently filed a case against our client in North Carolina. He has made a settlement demand that any rational observer would regard as ambitious to the point of outrageous. Despite that crazy number, we are on fairly friendly terms with the plaintiff lawyer. We jawbone at each other in a generally good
Today’s case is Thelen v. Somatics, LLC, 2023 WL 3338221 (M.D. Fla. May 5, 2023). It is a straightforward products liability case involving a medical device used in electro-convulsive therapy. Plaintiff alleges the device caused a permanent neurological injury, memory loss, and brain damage and that the manufacturer is liable for failure to warn
If we have said it once, we have said it a hundred times: medical product manufacturers are not insurers of their products. Almost as frequently uttered would be that strict liability is not the same thing as absolute liability. In the show position might be that the temporal relationship between a new medical condition and
One key point where implied preemption differs from express preemption is that express preemption is inherently limited by the language of the particular statute that contains the pertinent preemption clause, whereas general principles of implied preemption have broad application to all similar cases. Since the preemption of agency fraud claims recognized in Buckman Co. v. Plaintiffs Legal Committee, 531 U.S. 341 (2001), was based entirely on implied preemption, Bexis has kept track of non-FDCA applications of Buckman implied preemption in his book. See § 5.02[4][c] n.294. Non-FDA-related findings that federal agency fraud claims are preempted include:
Farina v. Nokia, Inc., 625 F.3d 97, 104 (3d Cir. 2010) (FCC); Transmission Agency of Northern California v. Sierra Pacific Power Co., 295 F.3d 918, 932 n.10 (9th Cir. 2002) (FERC); Nathan Kimmel, Inc. v. DowElanco, 275 F.3d 1199, 1204-06 (9th Cir. 2002) (EPA); Murray v. Motorola, Inc., 982 A.2d 764, 770 n.6 (D.C. 2009) (FCC); McCall v. Pacificare, Inc., 21 P.3d 1189, 1199 n.9 (Cal. 2001) (Health Care Financing Administration); Timaero Ireland Ltd. v. Boeing Co., 2021 WL 963815 at *6-7 (N.D. Ill. March 15, 2021) (FAA); LCS Group v. Shire LLC, 2019 WL 1234848 at *6 (S.D.N.Y. March 8, 2019) (patent office); In re Volkswagen “Clean Diesel” Marketing, Sales Practices, & Products Liability Litigation, 264 F. Supp.3d 1040, 1054-55 (N.D. Cal. 2017) (EPA); Syngenta Crop Protectin v. Willowood, 2016 WL 6783628 at *1 (M.D.N.C. Aug. 12, 2016) (EPA); Giglio v. Monsanto Co., 2016 WL 1722859 at *3 (S.D. Cal. April 29, 2016) (EPA); Offshore Service Vessels, LLC v. Surf Subsea, Inc., 2012 WL 5183557 at *11-12 (E.D. La. Oct. 17, 2012) (Coast Guard); Ramirez v. E.I. Dupont De Nemours & Co., 2010 WL 3529509 at *2 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 3, 2010) (EPA); Lockwood v. Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, LLP, 2009 WL 9419499 at *7 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 24, 2009) (patent office); Beck v. Koppers, Inc., 2006 WL 2228910 at *1 (N.D. Miss. April 7, 2006) (EPA); Hill v. Brush Engineered Materials, Inc., 383 F. Supp.2d 814, 822 (D. Md. 2005) (EPA, OSHA); Williams v. Dow Chemical Co., 255 F. Supp.2d 219, 232 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (EPA); Morgan v. Brush Wellman, Inc., 165 F. Supp.2d 704, 722 (E.D. Tenn. 2001) (Dept. of Energy); Zwiercan v. General Motors Corp., 2002 WL 31053838, 58 Pa. D. & C.4th 251, 266 (Pa. Com. Pl. 2002) (NHTSA); Redelmann v. Alexander Chemical Corp., 2002 WL 34423377 (Ill. Cir. July 26, 2002) (EPA).
Now Buckman preemption is the centerpiece of In re Ford Motor Co. F-150 & Ranger Truck Fuel Economy Marketing & Sales Practices Litigation, ___ F.4th ___, 2023 WL 3029837 (6th Cir. April 21, 2023). Indeed, at least one aspect of Ford F-150 is favorable to Buckman preemption in a way that should be useful in the drug/device field.
Continue Reading Automotive Preemption Case Has Buckman Front and Center
Last week we saw an article on a baseball website about batters who, through umpire forgetfulness or whatever, were not called out until strike four. Then we read Comatov v. Medtronic, Inc., 2023 WL 2922830 (C.D. Cal. March 16, 2023), in which the court did not call a complete and final stop (like what the teenagers
At least try to do something different.
As we discussed before, because his prescription drug warning claims collided with federal preemption, the plaintiff in Roshkovan v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., 2022 WL 3012519 (C.D. Cal. Jun. 22, 2022), needed to plead what the FDA didn’t know, not what it did, to avoid dismissal. His second try wasn’t any better than the first.
When we see a court dismiss a pharma product liability case on preemption grounds, we simply have to write about it. Otherwise, we’d be required to turn in our bar card, our defense hack card, and our friendly neighborhood DDL blogger card.
In Polson v. AstraZeneca Ltd. Partnership, 2023 WL 2770687 (D.Conn. April 4, 2023)
We reported nearly two years ago on a California trial court that dismissed claims against generic over-the-counter drug manufacturers under California’s notorious Proposition 65, on the basis that federal law preempted those claims. You can read that post here, and you will see that we said at the end that an appeal was likely.
We have made no secret of our long-held views that “failure to withdraw” or “stop selling” theories of liability for FDA-authorized medical products are unwarranted perversions of state design defect law and preempted anyway. When we say long-held, we mean it, because we had a few of the first cases where this theory was put
When we started seeing a smattering of cases over long-term contraceptive devices used in connection with tubal ligation surgery, we were not surprised. Plaintiff lawyers have targeted a wide range of contraceptive drugs and devices for decades. Commentators beyond this Blog have described how this bent affects contraceptive choice and public health. When we saw