We don’t usually blog about statute of limitations cases because the issues tend be state and fact specific. But Boyd v. Allergan PLC, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115779 (D. Org. Jul. 6, 2023) addresses a fact situation we see repeated often enough in medical device cases that we thought it was worth reporting on.
We’ve written several posts about ridiculous absolute liability theories seeking to hold drug manufacturers liable simply for making an FDA approved prescription drug. Wilkins v. Genzyme Corp., 2022 WL 4237528 (D. Mass. Sept. 14, 2022), is an even stranger claim, with the plaintiff seeking to hold the defendant liable for not manufacturing a prescription drug. Fortunately, in Wilkins, those claims (several theories alleging essentially the same thing) did not state a claim.
Continue Reading No Liability for Not Manufacturing a Product
When we say “bananas,” today’s case is actually about bananas, that herb people tend to call a fruit. It is also quite unusual and complicated. Because it also involves some tragic underlying events, our quips are done. A bit of etymology is warranted, though. We used the term “judge-made law” in the title and that
Today’s case isn’t drug/device, but it’s something our defense-oriented readers should know about. At the tail end of 2021, the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court laid this rotten egg: Commonwealth v. Monsanto Co., ___ A.3d ___, 2021 WL 6139209 (Pa. Cmwlth. Dec. 30, 2021) (“CvM”). The Commonwealth Court is a unique Pennsylvania judicial body,
We tend not to post much on appellate statute of limitations decisions. There are a few reasons for that. First, they are often very fact-specific, rarely delivering holdings with clear applications to other cases. Second, because they can be fact-specific and plaintiffs are known to plead around defenses, good decisions on motions to dismiss are
We hope, when our time on earth is up, we are remembered as someone who possessed skills and made contributions. We are certain that gardening will not be among them. In that vein, we recently hired professionals to plant a lovely new bed at the end of our driveway. We were admonished that we must
Wanke v. Invasix, Inc., 2021 WL 325923 (M.D. Tenn. Feb. 1, 2021) is an interesting and somewhat long story, so we’re just going to give it to you straight.
In June 2017, plaintiff underwent a medical procedure on her face in which defendant’s medical device was used. Her counsel entered into a tolling agreement
A couple of times in recent weeks we have discussed pelvic mesh cases where a central issue was whether the cases were time-barred by a statute of limitations or repose. (See here and here.) There is a reason why this issue crops up persistently. The pelvic mesh litigation started off as a mass tort
Unlike the Big Guy tonight, we here at the Drug and Device Law Blog do not distribute bags of toys. Throughout this annus horribilis, we’ve handed out plenty of veritable mixed bags. Langner v. Boston Sci. Corp., 2020 U.S. Dist. Lexis 222125 (D. Nebraska Oct. 1, 2020), is another such mixed bag. Langner
We don’t like class action tolling. We don’t think that plaintiffs should be rewarded for filing a meritless class action (or any other meritless act) with a potentially broad and lengthy exemption from the relevant statute of limitations. We particularly don’t like cross-jurisdictional class action tolling, which makes a state’s enforcement of its own statute