We can’t say much about the Neurontin litigation because our firm has some involvement, but anybody who has to oppose a third-party payer action brought as a class action should read In re Neurontin Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, ___ F. Supp.2d ___, 2010 WL 53568 (D. Mass. Jan. 8, 2010). The case decides various
Don’t look now, but things have gotten a bit weird for Third-Party Payor (TPP) lawsuits in the District of Minnesota. It all started way back in 2006: Judge James Rosenbaum, presiding over the Medtronic Implantable Defibrillators MDL, denied a motion to dismiss a bevy of state-law claims brought by TPPs, including the usual litany of
The Illinois Supreme Court reversed the unusual class Baycol class certification in the De Bouse case late last week. Here’s a link to the opinion (also at 2009 WL 4843362). It’s yet another of those class actions that we call “strike suits” because (1) there’s no personal injury at all – only a
Right now, it looks like Lilly’s got the “big mo” in the Zyprexa litigation. Hard on the heals of Judge Weinstein’s dismissal of the Mississippi AG action, Lilly chalked up another win yesterday in Philadelphia against a third party payor. Here’s a copy, Pennsylvania Employees Benefit Trust v. Eli Lilly & Co., 2009 WL
“Scratch One Flat Top” marked the sinking of an enemy aircraft carrier in the Battle of the Coral Sea.
In the battle over off-label promotion, scratch another lawsuit. Central Regional Employees Benefit Fund v. Cephalon, 2009 U.S. Dist. Lexis 93636 (D.N.J. Oct. 7, 2009), sends another would-be third party payor fraud suit to
We’ve blogged several times before about the many deficiencies of third-party payor class actions for purely economic – and usually invented – loss. In all but a few courtrooms, such claims have been dismissed. Yesterday, it happened again, in Southern Illinois Laborers’ and Employers Health and Welfare Fund v. Pfizer Inc., Civ. A. No.
We saw yesterday on 360 that the Pennsylvania Employees third party payer action in the Seroquel litigation was dismissed. Here’s a copy of the opinion for those who are interested. This result is consistent with other recent dismissals in this kind of litigation, as we’ve discussed here, here, here, and here (guest
A tip of the old cyberhat – and not for the first time – to Alan Modlinger at Lowenstein Sandler for passing along to us the latest good news on the off-label promotion front – dismissal (with leave to replead under Twombly) in In re Schering-Plough Corp. Intron/Temodar Consumer Class Action, slip op.
After a two-year investigation, the Department of Justice charged Intermune with misbranding the drug Actimmune by promoting it off-label to treat idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis.
(We like to use sentences like that. It gets our sophisticated readers salivating while discouraging the rest.)
After the deferred prosecution agreement and payment of the $42.5 million fine, the deluge.
Not too long ago – but eons ago by blogging standards – blog reader Alan Modlinger over at Lowenstein Sandler favored us with a copy of an opinion, District 1199P Health & Welfare Plan v. Janssen LLP, 2008 WL 5413105 (D.N.J. Dec. 3, 2008), in which the court blew out one of the other