There are some basic rules for medical product liability litigation, at least as we—and the vast majority of courts—see it. One is that the manufacturer of the medical product that the plaintiff used and allegedly injured her is typically the right defendant. Part of what a potential plaintiff is supposed to do during the statute
Covid has altered how and where we practice law. Along the way, it has also improved our exercise regimen. Every couple of days, we receive bankers boxes of binders and documents and then tote them upstairs to what passes for our home office.
For some reason, that makes us think of hernia mesh litigation.
Cosh
Today we report on a recent decision dismissing manufacturing-defect, warranty, and failure-to-warn claims arising from an allegedly defective breast implant. Although the decision, D’Addario v. Johnson & Johnson, 2021 WL 1214896 (D.N.J. 2021), does not stray far from the beaten path, it covers ground worth revisiting. The decision is a useful (if cursory) reminder
It is starting to feel like spring. For those with a poetic or philosophical bent, spring may bring thoughts of renewal and the cyclical rhythms of the planet, among other things. For those interested in more practical things, perhaps the need to do a spring cleaning or plan for some plantings outside. Clutter does have
Today’s case, Knudsen v. Ethicon, Inc., 2021 WL 390825 (M.D. Fla. 2021), involves product-liability claims against a surgical-mesh manufacturer. In a short decision, the court dismissed manufacturing-defect and implied-warranty claims as inadequately pleaded under Michigan law. Although not fully developed, the court’s reasons for dismissing the claims exhibit both insight into manufacturing-defect claims and
We praised Brooks v. Mentor Worldwide, LLC, 2019 WL 4628264 (D. Kan. Sept. 23, 2019), when it was first decided, as “checking all the boxes.” Last week the Tenth Circuit affirmed, and believe us, it rechecked all those boxes.
In Brooks v. Mentor Worldwide LLC, ___ F.3d ___, 2021 WL 245246
We refuse to end the year on a bad note, so we’ll talk about a case that’s good – not good enough to make tomorrow’s top-ten list, but good enough to slam the door shut on 2020 with a reasonable amount of cheer.
Vicente v. Johnson & Johnson, 2020 WL 7586907 (D.N.J. Dec. 21,
This blogger’s work from home experience has included a lot of time with two teenagers. Granted, two relatively smart, funny, and generally OK to be around teenagers. But teenagers, nonetheless. So, I’ve been witness to some true common senseless moments. Like twenty minutes of trying to start the lawnmower before checking if it had gas.
The issue of product recalls rears its head a lot in our medical device practice. Or non-recalls, to be more precise. In the unsavory world of plaintiff solicitation, we have seen, over and over again, that plaintiff firms and their “phone banks” recruit potential plaintiffs by telling them that devices that remain in their bodies
We begin with an update on the “visiting dogs’ health crisis.” All medications are finished, special diets are a thing of the past, and (dare we say it out loud) all canine digestive tracts seem peaceful. The chubby Pomeranian was relieved of about four inches of hair today at the hands of a