Critics have been known to accuse us of being too hard on product liability plaintiffs and too forgiving of defendants who develop medical products.  We all have our biases, especially after many collective decades of representing the latter group, but we do think the table is often tilted in favor of the former group.  One

Make no mistake about it – the result of Dunn v. Genzyme Corp., 2021 Mass LEXIS 84 (Mass. SJC Jan. 29, 2021) – is what we want.  Dismissal of all of plaintiff’s claims for failure to plead them with the necessary factual support.  But sometimes results need context and sometimes that context is not

We’ve complained before about MDL “master” or “consolidated” complaints being used to deprive defendants of the ability to pursue their rights to seek dismissal on TwIqbal and other pleading-related grounds.  In individual actions, defendants have the right to put the plaintiffs’ pleadings to the test required by Rules 8 and 12.  That has not necessarily

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,

Perhaps the biggest conflict among the circuits in PMA preemption cases involves the extent to which plaintiffs can get away with pleading essentially nothing to support supposed “parallel” violation claims, on the one hand, or on the other must plead a particularized violation of an FDA regulation (usually a “Current Good Manufacturing Practice” or “CGMP”)

Like many of you, we spend a large portion of our professional life litigating cases consolidated in MDLs.  MDLs serve a purpose in this “mass tort” world, but they also breed laziness and complacency among plaintiff lawyers who amass “inventories” of clients they’ve never met and about whose claims they know nothing in the hope

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

Not long ago, an EPL (evil plaintiff lawyer) relayed to us that, based on reading our posts, another EPL had assumed we had a particular political view.  As we laughed at the notion, we pondered the issues of assumption and incomplete information.  Much like the old quip about what happens when you assume, many assumptions