The defendants in Mixson v. C.R. Bard, Inc., ___ F. Supp.3d ___, (N.D. Fla. Sept. 16, 2022) (“Mixson I”), and Mixson v. C.R. Bard, Inc., 2022 WL 7581737 (N.D. Fla. Sept. 23, 2022) (“Mixson II”), by no means won everything, but what they won was more important than what they didn’t, so we’re OK with the results.
California state court is not the place most products liability defendants want to end up. Unfortunately, today’s case had to stay in state court because plaintiff sued the defendant’s device representatives who had direct contact with the plaintiff. The reps, like plaintiff, were California residents and destroyed diversity jurisdiction. The decision, however, in James v.
For a decision that affirmed not just a verdict, but an award of punitive damages, against a device manufacturer, Nicholson v. Biomet, Inc., 46 F.4th 757 (8th Cir. 2022), is not as bad as it could have been. That’s because most of the decision was about evidentiary rulings that the court found to be “harmless” error, and one might even have some benefit for our clients in the long run.
Still, Nicholson was pretty darn depressing.
Quick puppy update: the standard poodle puppies, one of which will be our first-ever show dog in a house filled with canine and feline rescued ragamuffins, are four weeks old today. All eight are fat and healthy, despite a scare with one white male puppy a week or so ago. We will meet them this
Today’s post is actually about a medical malpractice case. But it involves the interplay between an FDA “Safety Communication” and punitive damages, so we thought it was worth looking at.
In Rivera v. Valley Hospital, Inc., 2022 WL 3650726 (NJ Aug. 25, 2022), plaintiff is the representative of the estate of a woman who
In our experience, plaintiffs in product liability cases always seek punitive damages. Even when their claimed injuries are quite modest or their state does not permit punitive damages, they give it a shot. We have had cases with partial summary judgment on punitive damages, with directed verdict on punitive damages, and with jury verdicts for
New Jersey ain’t Florida and vice versa. Obviously, it’s warmer in Florida for more of the year and it never gets cold enough to snow. That could be a pro or a con. Florida has the second longest coastline among U.S. States which gives it a greater opportunity to have more highly rated beaches. But
The pelvic mesh case of the week – McBroom v. Ethicon, Inc., 2022 WL 604889 (D. Arizona March 1, 2022) – focuses on the regulatory status of the device. We always knew it was an important issue, and McBroom provides yet another reason why that is so.
As you must know by now, the
This post is from the non-Dechert side of the blog.
From the first time that we discussed Lexecon, Inc. v. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, 523 U.S. 26 (1998), and the related MDL concept of Lexecon waivers, we’ve been plenty leery of defendants in cases transferred into multidistrict litigation waiving their retransfer rights
Bexis was updating the chapter of his drug and medical device treatise pertaining to, inter alia, punitive damages and came across In re Valsartan, Losartan, & Irbesartan Products Liability Litigation, 2020 WL 8970347 (D.N.J. March 12, 2020).
Consistent with a number of alarmingly pro-plaintiff decisions that we’ve already seen from that MDL,