We’ve been posting about this case since 2016 when the district court first dismissed plaintiff’s failure to warn claim as preempted on the grounds that there was clear evidence the FDA would have rejected the warning plaintiff sought. We celebrated again in 2017 when the Tenth Circuit affirmed that decision. Since then we’ve been
While it’s not prescription medical product liability litigation, per se, we’ve been aghast, scratching our heads about the recent litigation firestorm surrounding the pesticide Roundup and its active ingredient, glyphosate. Despite consistent findings from every regulatory body in the world – save one (the IARC) – that this product is not a carcinogen, plaintiffs peddling
Offhand, we cannot think of opinions we have blogged on that pleased us more than today’s cases, Jacob v. Mentor Worldwide, LLC, et al., 2019 WL 3500325 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 1, 2019) and Vieira v. Mentor Worldwide, LLC, et al., 2019 WL 3500331 (Aug. 1, 2019). The two decisions are virtually identical and
Bexis attended the recent Rolling Stones concert in Philadelphia – the first time he’d seen them live since 1975. The highlights: while they’re really old (Jagger just turned 76), they still rock. Whoever supplied Mick Jagger’s heart valve implant should pay whatever it takes to get a public endorsement. Defying expectations, Keith Richards is still
In a significant preemption decision clipping the wings of California consumer protection plaintiffs, two identical decisions: Borchenko v. L‘Oreal USA, Inc., ___ F. Supp.3d ___, 2019 WL 3315288 (C.D. Cal. July 18, 2019), and Borchenko v. L‘Oreal USA, Inc., 2019 WL 3315289 (C.D. Cal. July 18, 2019) (differing only by docket number, as
Reading through Obermeier v. Northwestern Memorial Hosp., __ N.E.3d __, 2019 IL App. (1st) 170553 (Ill. App. Div. June 28, 2019), reminded us of scrolling through television channels in the middle of the day with time to kill. The opinion started off talking about the basic medical facts of the case and we were
We might not have even read the Supreme Court’s recent – and long and convoluted − agency deference decision, Kisor v. Wilkie, ___ S. Ct. ___, 2019 WL 2605554 (U.S. June 26, 2019), except that it tripped several of our automatic searches by citing both Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc., 552 U.S. 312 (2008),
Indulge us for a moment as we recount another airline adventure. Recently, we traveled thousands of miles to an important argument. Our first flight boarded right on time, left the gate right on time, and taxied down the runway . . . partway. Then stopped. Enter the inevitable announcement: “Ladies and gentlemen, we’re very sorry,
We like preemption and we dislike expensive discovery. In Gale v. Mentor Worldwide, LLC, 2019 WL 2567790 (D. Kansas June 21, 2019), the court felt the same way we do, and did something about it.
The plaintiff in Gale sued for injuries allegedly sustained as a result of silicone breast implants. The complaint contained
It hasn’t happened yet, but just as the Supreme Court originally did with Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Albrecht, 139 S. Ct. 1668 (U.S. 2019), the Court issued an order on June 24, asking for the Solicitor General’s views in Avco Corp. v. Sikkelee, No. 18-1140. The Order is on SCOTUSBlog, here