Last week, like most weeks during the past year, we spent a lot of our time on airplanes. One of those trips fell on a day with “lots of weather.”  All of our flights were delayed, although we were luckier than many.  When we landed at Dulles for our connecting flight home, the queue at the customer service booth comprised hundreds of stranded passengers looping around and around like the approach to Space Mountain, hoping, with varying degrees of impatience and panic, to reschedule canceled flights.  But our connecting flight was only late – very late.  We sat at our gate for almost three hours, then were finally allowed to board.  We buckled in, we watched a taciturn flight attendant demonstrate the seat belts we were already wearing, and then we sat.  For forty more minutes.  (By now, it was 12:30 a.m.)  Finally, the “flight deck” made an announcement:  we were sitting still because the trash can in the galley lacked a lid, and this was a “safety hazard” that had to be rectified before we could take off.  And so we were waiting for the “caterer,” a contractor, to bring a new trash can.  Eventually, a truck pulled up, but it was carrying the wrong type of trash can.  Ultimately, someone went next door to a plane that was done flying for the night — as all sane people were, by that point – and stole a trash can.  And we were on our way.

So who was at fault?   Was it the contractor, which (twice) provided the wrong trash can? Or was it the airline, which shall remain nameless because (trust me) it doesn’t need any more bad publicity and which specified and installed the trash can?  Depends on the nature of the claim, under a (very very) loose interpretation of today’s decision from the Eastern District of Wisconsin.

In Janusz v. Symmetry Medical, Inc., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88895 (E.D. Wis. June 9, 2017), the plaintiffs alleged that the femoral neck of their artificial hips systems broke, requiring additional surgeries to replace the hip system.  The femoral neck was a component, manufactured by the defendant according to specifications and instructions provided by the hip system’s fabricator (which was bankrupt by the time of suit).  The plaintiffs asserted claims sounding in negligence and strict liability against both companies, and the component manufacturer moved for summary judgment, asserting the so-called “contract specification defense” to the plaintiffs’ claims.  This is a component part manufacturer’s defense, and not one we have ever discussed here.  Hence, our interest in Janusz.

Under this defense, a manufacturer that “makes a product strictly in accordance with the design specifications of another is not liable in negligence unless the specifications are so obviously defective and dangerous that a contractor of reasonable prudence would have been put on notice that the product was dangerous and likely to cause injury.” Januscz, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88895, at *11 (citation omitted).  And, while this defense is not among the five defenses listed in Wisconsin’s product liability statute, the court held that the statute supplemented but did not supersede common-law doctrines that weren’t inconsistent with it.  While Wisconsin common law had not adopted the contract specification defense, either, it had adopted the “government contractor defense,” the underlying principles of which — declining to hold a contractor liable when it manufactured a product according  to the specifications of another – overlap those of the contract specification defense.  Under the government contractor defense, a contractor that “makes a product strictly in accordance with the design specifications of another is not liable in negligence unless the specifications are so obviously defective and dangerous that a contractor  of reasonable prudence would have been put on notice that the product was dangerous and likely to cause injury.” Id. at *12 (citation omitted).  This is essentially the same test used in the contract specification defense generally. See Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability §5, Reporters’ Note to Comment a (1998) (a “majority of courts” hold “that a manufacturer of a component part . . . cannot be held strictly liable . . . so long as the specifications provided are not so obviously dangerous that it would be unreasonable to follow them”) (citation and quotation marks omitted).

In Januscz, however,  the court drew a distinction between negligence and strict liability that does not exist generally.  It held that, “[i]ntuitively,” it made sense that “an entity that has no role in designing a product should bear no liability if the product is defectively designed.” Id. at *12.  But “that intuitive  reaction follows only when plaintiff’s theory of recovery is negligence.” Id. (citations omitted).  And, “in Wisconsin, product liability was and is a matter of strict liability.” Id. at *13 (citations omitted).  In the strict liability context, unlike in negligence, “the focus is on the dangerousness of the product regardless of the defendant’s conduct.  Thus, a defendant may be blameless but strictly liable.” Id. (internal punctuation and citations omitted).  The court concluded that, given  the  “recent codification of product liability law reaffirming Wisconsin’s commitment to  the principles of  strict liability, if  presented with a question of whether the contract specification defense applies to a question of strict liability under Wisconsin law, the Wisconsin Supreme  Court would hold  that it does not.” Id. at *24. Januscz declared that “strict liability means strict liability.   It exists to shift costs associated with unsafe products to those  who are in the best position to disperse  those costs (be it through insurance, indemnification,  or some other means.” Id. at *25.  And, the court held, the “contract specification defense significantly undermines the policies underlying strict liability.  Therefore, the court concludes that the defense does not exist  under Wisconsin law.” Id. at *26.

This result is simply wrong under Wisconsin law. The Januscz court completely failed to cite the most relevant case, Schreiner v. Wieser Concrete Prod., Inc., 720 N.W.2d 525 (Wis. 2006), in which the Wisconsin Supreme Court expressly adopted Restatement Third §5 as “consistent with Wisconsin law.” Id. at 530.  Thus, Wisconsin law does not distinguish between negligence and strict liability, particularly in the context of product specifications and component parts. See also Spychalla v. Boeing Aerospace Operations Inc., 2015 WL 3504927, at *3 n.2 (E.D. Wis. June 3, 2015) (recognizing Wisconsin’s adoption of §5 after enacting of tort reform statute).  Indeed, after correctly holding that the Wisconsin tort reform statute only “supplements” the common law Januscz failed even to cite Restatement Third §5 – the relevant Wisconsin common law for component parts under Schreiner.  If anything, the statute reinforces use of the Third Restatement in Wisconsin, since the statute generally adopted that Restatement alternative design defect test and its “not reasonably safe” defect terminology. See Wis. Stat. §895.047(1)(a) (“A product is defective in design if the foreseeable risks of harm posed by the product could have been reduced or avoided by the adoption of a reasonable alternative design by the manufacturer and the omission of the alternative design renders the product not reasonably safe.”).

Rather than actually follow Wisconsin law, the court simply repeated the truism that “strict liability does not mean absolute liability.”  2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88895, at *26 (emphasis in original).  To wit, a component manufacturer could escape liability if its component part underwent substantial change when it was included in the assembled device.  But, the court held, the defendant’s femoral neck component did not undergo such change.  And so the court denied summary judgment on the plaintiffs’ strict liability claims, though it granted summary judgment for the component manufacturer on the plaintiffs’ negligence claims.

While this interesting decision appears thorough at first glance, in fact it completely omits essential Wisconsin law, Schreiner and Restatement Third §5, and thus its discussion of the philosophical underpinnings of strict liability, based on Restatement Second §402A, which Wisconsin no longer follows, is (to be polite) open to question.  We hope that the defendant eventually convinces the court of the error of its ways.

 

This post is from the non-Reed Smith side of the blog.

We understand that illnesses and injuries can be emotional; sometime extremely emotional and rightfully so. We understand that some treatments can add to the stress. We certainly understand that when a treatment results in complications or does not turn out as hoped, an already tense situation can become intense. We don’t deny the “personal” side of personal injury cases. But drug and device products liability cases are not infliction of emotional distress cases. Which is what the court found in Ripple v. Davol, Inc., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82867 (S.D. Fla. May 31, 2017).

Plaintiff brought most of the standard products liability causes of action – negligence, strict liability, failure to warn, breach of implied warranty, negligent misrepresentation, and fraud – but also included claims for both intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress.  Id. at *2. The court dismissed the warranty claim for lack of privity, id. at *10-11, and misrepresentation and fraud for failure to satisfy the heightened pleading requirement. Id. at *11-13.

On infliction of emotional distress, the court explained that under either an intentional or negligence standard, plaintiff has to allege “conduct so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community.” Id. at *7 (citations omitted). Just read that again and let it sink in. We think it is immediately apparent that such a claim does not belong in a drug or medical device case. We are talking about products that had to be approved by the FDA before being sold and the levels of testing, analysis, monitoring, and reporting that goes along with that. Satisfying all the FDA requirements and then marketing a medical device that can only be obtained via a licensed surgeon who must also implant the device is hardly an atrocity that would offend the bounds of decency.

Plaintiff’s only response was that her infliction of emotional distress claims were based on defendant’s failure to properly test or properly design the device. Id. at *8. The opinion contains citations to the type of conduct that does rise to the “utterly intolerable” level and the horrors described even briefly in the parentheticals make it abundantly clear that failure to test/design doesn’t even come close. Id. at *8-9.

If plaintiff’s allegations were sufficient, “any manufacturer who is liable for strict products liability or negligence is also liable for the infliction of emotional distress upon those damaged by the product.” Id. at *9. An infliction of emotional distress claim cannot be solely premised on ordinary products liability and negligence. It must involve a degree of “physical contact” or “severely threatening behavior.” Id. at *10. Neither of which is present in this case or in any drug/device case (at least that we can think of). With no supporting case law and no supporting facts, the court dismissed the claims with prejudice.

We don’t see a lot of infliction of emotional distress claims in this arena, probably for the very reasons discussed in Ripple. But the court’s explanation for why these claims are not viable is among the best we’ve seen.

 

Parties often file motions in limine on fairly case-specific issues, building on the history of discovery and motions practice in the case.  Applying a ruling on in limines from one case to another can be a dicey proposition as potentially significant differences in the facts, law, claims and defenses asserted, and other rulings can usually be identified.  Plus, many pre-trial decisions on evidence do not last once doors get opening and evidence can be cumulative, among other reasons why judges’ minds change.  Still, we do posts on rulings on motions in limine that we guess might have some relevance to other cases our readers have.  When we do, we can be hamstrung by the limited information in these opinions on the facts, allegations, and other rulings, such as rulings on motions for summary judgment that would typically be rendered before the in limines are decided.

In In re Depakote, No. 15-CV-702-NJR-SCW, 2017 WL 2126837, *2 (S.D. Ill. May 16, 2017), we have rulings on a grab bag of motions in limine after the court issued partial summary judgment for the drug manufacturing defendant based on “preemption of label changes related to development delay” after fetal exposure of the medication.  If this summary judgment ruling sounds familiar, then you might need a hobby.  You also might have read any number of our posts on the Rheinfrank case and the ultimate affirmance of its preemption decision and defense verdict by the Sixth Circuit.  Like here, here and here.  As we said of the appellate decision, “The court held, ‘[g]iven, then, that as of 2008 the FDA did not believe the state of the data supported a developmental delay warning, it stands to reason that as of 2003, with even less data to go on, the FDA would similarly have rejected a developmental delay warning.’ Thus, Rheinfrank joins those courts that have drawn a preemptive line barring all plaintiffs who used a drug prior to an FDA insufficient evidence decision concerning the risk at issue.”  We also wondered how the case got to a jury given trial court’s preemption decision and the requirements of Ohio law.  We have similar wonderment at the instant case, which involved 2006 fetal exposure.  The decision is sparse on facts, but it is hard to imagine a viable product liability claim for the plaintiff’s injury when plaintiff cannot prove that the label in place when the drug was prescribed to the mother should have said something different about the risk of the injury in question.  Some sort of warnings claim seems to be pending, along with a claim for punitive damages.

With that background, we turn to the subset of the 28 total motions in limine that we think matter most.  First, consistent with the preemption ruling and the applicable regulation, plaintiff could not preclude the manufacturer from explaining that a proposed change to the label through the CBE regulation is still subject to FDA’s decision to accept, reject, or modify the proposed change.  2017 WL 2126837, *2.  What the CBE regulation has to do with plaintiff’s surviving warnings claim or whether it could have used (e.g., based on new evidence of safety) is unclear. Second, plaintiff’s red herring argument about whether FDA is required to do its own post-marketing studies did not preclude the defendant from presenting evidence that it followed labeling regulations.  Third, while the court allowed some speculative evidence from the plaintiff’s mother in connection with the inquiry on proximate cause for failure to warn—which should not happen unless a different developmental delay warning has been articulated—this opened the door to some amount of evidence on what she knew and how she behaved. Id. at **2-3.

As to the defendant’s motions, the post-conception labeling and regulatory communications were excluded and defendant agreed not to raise pre-conception discussions with FDA about labeling changes that were not yet approved. Id. at *3.  (With the limited information presented in the opinion, we cannot say if there was evidence that FDA rejected or discouraged whatever labeling change plaintiff was allowed to urge in the case.)  The court also excluded a 2009 FDA alert about the risk of birth defects with the drug, although plaintiff was allowed to discuss any pre-conception studies that went into the alert. Id. at *4.  Limiting warnings evidence to what existed before the prescription at issue makes sense, but it also makes sense that there needs to be a claim based on what the warnings should have said instead at that point.  Along those lines, plaintiff was not allowed to argue that the drug should have been contraindicated for use in pregnancy because plaintiff offered no expert who disclosed such an opinion. Id. (And such an opinion would have had some preemption problems, we think.)  Plaintiff was allowed, however, to offer evidence about foreign labels for the drug in place before plaintiff’s conception, holding that the manufacturer’s knowledge of these labels was relevant to its duty to warn. Id. at **7-8.  Breaking somewhat from its previously firm line on the irrelevance of the post-conception evidence to the warnings claim, the court did not foreclose the possibility that some post-conception marketing materials could be relevant if “they contain pre-2006 facts.” Id. at *6.  Again, we would think the pre-2006 facts would need to relate to whatever about the 2006 warnings for developmental delay that plaintiff was allowed to claim should have been different.

There was one last ruling that bears some discussion.  The defendant had pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor and paid a very, very large fine related to allegations of off-label promotion for use of the drug for schizophrenia and elderly dementia, which were not labeled indications. Id. at *9.  The plaintiff’s mother did not use the drug for these conditions and there was no evidence to “connect these activities with the 2006 Depakote teratogenicity warning.” Id. So, there was far too much prejudice compared to the probative value to let the jury hear about the plea or fines.  However, plaintiff was allowed to “introduce evidence regarding the off-label marketing and sales efforts . . . regarding bipolar disorder,” which was an indication added during 2006 (based on our quick look). Id.  The court saw this evidence as supporting plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages.  It seems to us that a plaintiff’s punitive damages evidence is not relevant unless it tends to show that the underlying conduct giving rise to liability was done with the requisite intent.  It does not sound like there is any connection between an alleged, non-preempted issue with the 2006 warnings for developmental delay and any off-label promotion issue, but maybe that link was just not spelled out in the opinion.

 

When this blogger hears “negligent undertaking,” my mind does not automatically turn to products liability – but rather to pre-teen children. Pre-teen children are at the age where they are asked (actually required) to “undertake” more and more duties and responsibilities. But often these duties are undertaken in a rather haphazard or lackadaisical way that some might say rise to the level of negligence. Dishes with food left on them put back in the cabinet. Wet laundry left in the dryer for more than a day. And as for cleaning up after the dog, well enough said. And as one of the two arbiters of whether such pre-teens have failed to act in good faith, I admit to guilt in an expanding definition of what constitutes negligent undertaking. The New Jersey courts fortunately have stricter and more precise guidelines than mood and level of tolerance on any given day to guide them and those rules led them to dismiss plaintiff’s negligent undertaking claim in Nelson v. Biogen Inc., 2017 WL 1382910 (D.N.J. Apr. 17, 2017).

The product at issue is Tysabri, a drug used to treat multiple sclerosis. Patients who test positive for anti-JC Virus antibodies were shown to be at an increased for developing a certain brain infection with use of the drug. Id. at *1. Plaintiff contracted the infection after being treated with the drug for three years.

It is worth pointing out some of the procedural history here to understand that his was a bit of a hail-Mary by the plaintiffs. Plaintiff’s initial and first amended complaints contained a claim for negligence that was dismissed because in New Jersey the sole remedy for products liability is the New Jersey Product Liability Act (NJPLA). Id. at *2. All products liability claims, except express warranty, are subsumed by the Act. So plaintiff’s second amended complaint alleged design defect and failure to warn under the NJPLA. Defendants moved to dismiss the design defect claim as preempted and plaintiff withdrew the claim before the court could rule on the motion. Id.   Which left plaintiff with only a failure to warn claim in his third amended complaint. After two years of discovery, plaintiff moved to amend his complaint for a fourth time, this time to add a negligent undertaking claim.

The basis for the claim, argued plaintiff, was that defendants had entered into a licensing agreement with the NIH to allow defendants to use the NIH’s JC virus antibody assay to develop the assay for commercial use. The assay would allow doctors to test for the antibodies to determine if their patients were at an increased risk for the brain infection. Id. The licensing agreement was entered into in 2006 and defendants released their JC virus antibody assay in 2012. Plaintiff alleges that when defendants entered into the licensing agreement, they were voluntarily undertaking the duty to develop the assay and that they failed to do so in a reasonable and timely manner. Id. at *3.

First, the court held that this negligent claim, like the negligence claim in plaintiff’s original complaint, was preempted by the exclusivity of the NJPLA. Plaintiff argued that negligent undertaking was different than other negligence claims because it is not based on a pre-existing duty. Not only did plaintiff have no New Jersey or other authority for this argument, it is a distinction without merit. As the court pointed out, “the application of the NJPLA is not premised on the timing of the duties incurred.” Id. at *4. Further, most duties (unlike those in my household) are at some point voluntarily assumed. “For example, before Defendants decided to develop, market, and sell Tysabri, they had no duty to do so. Once Defendants voluntarily decided to produce Tysabri, they then had a duty to act with reasonable care in doing so.” Id. Negligent undertaking is precluded by the NJPLA.

Second, the court found it would be an unprecedented expansion of liability to use negligent undertaking to create third-party negligence obligations to non-parties to the license, or indeed to any contract.  Plaintiff cited no cases in which a party who agreed to a license was held liable for negligent undertaking. Id. at *5. Acknowledging significant policy concerns, the court suggested that the more appropriate way to address issues of the type raised by plaintiff would be to deal with them specifically in the contract. The NIH could have included a time limit by when defendants should have developed the assay or the license would be revoked. Id.

Further, plaintiff failed to allege an essential element of negligent undertaking – reliance. Id. at *6. Plaintiff alleged that his status as a third-party beneficiary to the license agreement satisfied the reliance requirement, but he cited no authority for that proposition. So, closely adhering to the Erie doctrine, the court concluded that “If the courts of New Jersey believe that such an extension is appropriate, then they are in a better position to expand their own common law in the first instance.” Id.

This means plaintiff is back to his third amended complaint – failure to warn only. And as we just reported last week, there is good precedent on the adequacy of the Tysabri warnings and on Wyeth v. Levine preemption. And precedent has much more bearing in the courtroom than in the laundry room – where when prior rulings are cited to the judges they can be summarily ignored with a simple – “that was then, and I’ve changed my mind.”

 

I hope to see many of you at the 2017 DRI Drug and Medical Device Seminar on May 10-12th in New Orleans.  The meeting will feature its usual stellar lineup of presentations by in-house and outside counsel, a federal judge, deans of the drug and device defense bar, and – this is new – the US Chamber Litigation Center.  This seminar is the foremost educational and networking opportunity for practitioners in the pharmaceutical and medical device defense space. Connect with clients and colleagues and learn from cutting-edge presentations. We hope you join us in New Orleans!

If you want to chat, I’ll be in my usual front and center seat.

If you want to register, do it here

Regular readers of this blog know that we have a pretty jaded view of many MDLs. Obviously consolidation makes sense, at least on paper, in terms of efficiency and the best use of scarce court resources.  But, in practice, many MDLs promote a litigation “mob mentality,” in which the merits of individual cases are not important at the outset and, in the world of “settlement inventories” and “mass settlements,” may never draw the scrutiny of the judge or anyone else.   Though we continue to hope that “Lone Pine” orders will burgeon and raise the standards for plaintiffs seeking to fly under the radar and await settlement, many MDLs remain “safe havens” for plaintiffs who can’t satisfy the burden of proving their claims.

And a recent decision from the hip implant MDL does nothing to disturb this reality. In that MDL, a longstanding “Explant Preservation Order” requires preservation of hip implant devices removed from plaintiffs during explant surgeries.  The order requires plaintiffs to “make good faith efforts to ensure that [medical facilities] preserve” explanted devices and provides options for plaintiffs’ counsel to claim devices within 60 days of explant or, in the alternative, for the devices to be sent to the defendants.  It  requires all parties to handle explanted devices in accordance with a written protocol or consistent  with “methods and practices accepted by those in the field of inspection and testing of orthopedic devices,” to notify each other of devices in their possession before the date of the order, and to make devices available to each other after inspection and testing.   All of this, obviously, ensures that the critical evidence in this product liability MDL is preserved and handled in a fair and consistent manner.

In Marquis v. Biomet, Inc., et al., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28465 (N.D. Ind.  Mar. 1, 2017), the defendants moved for summary judgment against six plaintiffs.  Five of these plaintiffs had had their devices explanted before they filed suit, or after they filed suit but before their cases were transferred into the MDL, and did not know what happened to their devices after they were explanted.  The sixth plaintiff had several revision surgeries.  During the first, the femoral head of her hip implant was replaced, and she asked for the explanted femoral head.   She explained, “I figured I paid for it.  I wanted it.”  She kept the femoral head in her closet, didn’t disclose on her fact sheet that she had kept it, and didn’t tell anyone she had it until her deposition.  The devices explanted during her subsequent surgeries were not preserved.

Continue Reading Hip Implant MDL Denies Summary Judgment on Claims of Plaintiffs Who Failed to Preserve Explanted Devices

Our weekly search for new drug/medical device cases for 1/13/17 turned up something unusual – not of particular substantive significance, but unusual. Two of the opinions included citations to Wikipedia.

Wikipedia?  You mean the comprehensive online encyclopedia that is crowd-sourced, so that anybody – even us – can edit/alter the information contained on the entries (at least, most of them)?  That’s it.  Since the provenance of the information on Wikipedia is unknown, as lawyers we’ve been taught never, ever to cite to it as authoritative in filed papers (we often cite to it on the blog).  After all, given the high stakes of most of our litigation, an attorney citing to Wikipedia could have just added the information to which s/he is citing.

[I]f Wikipedia were regarded as an authoritative source, an unscrupulous lawyer (or client) could edit the Web site entry to frame the facts in a light favorable to the client’s cause. Likewise, an opposing lawyer critical of the Wikipedia reference could edit the entry, reframing the facts and creating the appearance that the first lawyer was misrepresenting or falsifying the source’s content.

Peoples, “The Citation of Wikipedia in Judicial Opinions,” 12 Yale J. L. & Tech. 1, 24 (2010) (quoting Richards, “Courting Wikipedia,” Trial, at  (April 2008)).  Obviously, that kind of bootstrapping oneself into authority isn’t allowed.  If lawyers want to cite ourselves, we should at least have to write law review articles.

So we thought it would be fun to see what we could find in the way of Wikipedia references in judicial opinions involving product liability litigation or prescription medical products, and even both. This post details what we found.

First, courts (or masters) have gotten in trouble for excessive reliance on Wikipedia.  In a Vaccine Act case, a special master declined to hold a hearing, and instead relied on internet sources such as Wikipedia.  That produced a reversal.  As to Wikipedia, the court stated:

[T]he exhibit introduced by the Special Master indicates that its information was drawn from Wikipedia.com, a website that allows virtually anyone to upload an article into what is essentially a free, online encyclopedia. A review of the Wikipedia website reveals a pervasive and, for our purposes, disturbing series of disclaimers, among them, that:  (i) any given Wikipedia article “may be, at any given moment, in a bad state: for example it could be in the middle of a large edit or it could have been recently vandalized;” (ii) Wikipedia articles are “also subject to remarkable oversights and omissions;” (iii) “Wikipedia articles (or series of related articles) are liable to be incomplete in ways that would be less usual in a more tightly controlled reference work;” (iv) “[a]nother problem with a lot of content on Wikipedia is that many contributors do not cite their sources, something that makes it hard for the reader to judge the credibility of what is written;” and (v) “many articles commence their lives as partisan drafts” and may be “caught up in a heavily unbalanced viewpoint.”

Campbell v. Sec’y HHS, 69 Fed. Cl. 775, 781 (2006). But see Keeler v. Colvin, 2014 WL 4394467, at *3 (D. Colo. Sept. 4, 2014) (allowing administrative law judge to cite Wikipedia in vaccine case; “[t]his Court finds no per se prohibition on citing Wikipedia in judicial opinions”).

Continue Reading Pitfalls Of Judges, Lawyers, And Experts Citing Wikipedia

These past two weeks, our loyal readers have descended into “The Pits” and then climbed to “The Peaks” with us as we reviewed the 10 worst and 10 best cases of 2016.

If you found yourself wanting more information on these cases and their impact – perhaps with a side of CLE credit – we’re pleased to announce that three of your bloggers (Bexis, Eric Alexander, and Steven Boranian) will be presenting a free 90-minute webinar on “The Good, the Bad and the Ugly: The Best and Worst Drug/Medical Device Decisions of 2016” on January 18 at 12 p.m. EST.

The webinar is presumptively approved for 1.5 general CLE credit in California, Illinois, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Texas and West Virginia. (For lawyers licensed in New York, it’s eligible for 1.5 credit under New York’s Approved Jurisdiction Policy.)

The program is free and open to anyone interested in tuning in, but you do have to sign up, which you can do here.

Ponder the following:  A man attends an exercise class at a facility run by a local religious institution.  Assume that he belonged to this facility, wanted to attend an exercise class because his fitness was less than optimal, and was informed of the need to get medical advice before starting a new and potentially demanding exercise program.  He had a heart attack and collapsed right after leaving the class.  Assume that the heart attack was not a total surprise given his health, but that he had not had a heart attack before and had not informed the people running the class of any particular risk.  The class instructor rushed to the man’s aid while others called 911.  The instructor was certified in cardiopulmonary resuscitation (“CPR”) and did her best to help the man.  When paramedics arrived, they assumed care of the man, but he died despite their best efforts.

Based on these facts and assumptions, answer this question:

Who should the man’s estate sue over his death?

A) Nobody.  B) The class instructor.  C) The religious institution.  D) The entities that operate the 911/EMT system.

If you answered other than “A,” then you might need to examine your propensity to blame others.

Add in the following to the scenario presented above:  The class instructor tending to the man did not utilize an automated external defibrillator (“AED”) that she knew was present and was certified in using.  She brought the AED to the man’s side, but elected not to use it because, in her judgment, he was having a seizure and not a heart attack.

Based on these additional facts, answer these questions:

1.  Who should the man’s estate sue over his death?

A) Nobody.  B) The class instructor.  C) The religious institution.  D) The entities that operate the 911/EMT system.  E) The company that sold the AED and offered training to purchasers.

2.  If the man’s estate already sued the religious institution over his death, who should the defendant bring in via third-party complaint?

A)  Nobody.  B)  The class instructor.  C) The entities that operate the 911/EMT system.  D) The company that sold the AED and offered training to purchasers.

In Wallis v. Brainerd Baptist Church, No. E2015-01827-SC-R11-CV, 2016 Tenn. LEXIS 920 (Tenn. Dec. 22, 2016), the estate sued the church that ran the gym and then both turned their attention to the seller of the medical device that was not used.  It is often said that bad cases make bad law, but sometimes egregiously over-reaching cases can make good law.  Ultimately, Wallis fits into the latter category.  A contrary result, which would have allowed a negligence or contract claim against the seller of a device that was not used with the decedent, would have been bad, maybe bad enough to have been mentioned in our bottom ten post last week.

Continue Reading Decision Limiting Duties regarding Automated External Defibrillators Does Not Shock The Conscience

Last week, along with many of you, we attended the ACI Drug and Medical Device Conference in New York City. The quality of the presentations was uniformly high, and the collegiality and camaraderie were welcome, refreshing, and a lot of fun.  There was plenty to drink.  There was lots of food.  Oh, and we got to see Hamilton!  We should preface our comments by pointing out that we were skeptics – we knew how pricey (really, really pricey) tickets are, and we weren’t even positive we would enjoy this immensely innovative rap musical.  To wit, one of our best beloved musicals of recent years was the wonderful, if short-lived, revival of Finian’s Rainbow that played the Great White Way a couple of years ago.  We go for the traditional stuff, and had neither resources nor plans to spring for Hamilton.

But we got very lucky. A generous friend had bought four tickets a full year earlier in anticipation of the annual conference.  And there was a last-minute cancellation.  And we got to go.  And it was worth all of the hype (and all of the money, if you have it).   We enjoyed it so much that we came home and researched ticket availability to return with the Drug and Device Law Long-Suffering Companion.  Tickets are on sale for next year, and we thought that we could avoid the crazy street prices by planning way ahead.   Not so – even this far in advance, tickets (from official ticket sources, not ticket agencies) are way out of the reach of normal consumers.  Sometimes, the early bird does not get the worm (or the greatest financial benefit).

And, with just a bit of creativity, we can glean the same message (among others) from today’s case. Dobbs v. DePuy Orthopedics, — F.3d —, 2016 WL 7015648 (Seventh Cir. Dec. 1, 2016), is an appeal of an attorney’s fee decision from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.  (We’ll explain how it got there in a minute.)  The plaintiff/appellant had direct-filed a product liability claim in the Hip Implant MDL in the Northern District of Ohio.  Believing that the promised compensation was too low, he opted out of the global settlement and fired his lawyers, who had advised him to accept the global settlement, which included a 35% attorneys’ fee.   (The global settlement provided one level of payment for unrepresented plaintiffs, and a second level, 35% higher, for represented plaintiffs.)

Less than two months after his lawyers withdrew their appearance, the plaintiff accepted the global settlement. Because he was considered “represented” for purposes of the settlement, he was paid the larger amount.  (Not clear why he was considered “represented” when his lawyers had been fired.)  His former lawyers asserted a lien on the award and sought to recover attorney’s fees.  The MDL judge tried unsuccessfully to mediate the fee dispute in the Northern District of Ohio then transferred the case to the Northern District of Illinois, where the case would have been filed if the MDL had not been pending.

Continue Reading Court of Appeals Applies Law of Would-Be Filing Court in Fee Dispute in Hip Implant Case Filed Directly Into MDL