Taking pot shots at “Big Pharma” is easy. Crack a joke about Big Pharma and you are sure to get a laugh. Amirite?
That is not to say there is never a fair point or two to be made about pharmaceutical development or marketing, or health care and the delivery of same in this country.
We are unabashedly pro-science. In our cases, we are usually on the side of good science against bad or no science. In discussing large-scale product liability litigation, we have said many times how bad science and the risk of attendant litigation can negatively impact the development of new products. Even if we were so naïve
The Vermont Supreme Court correctly applied the PREP Act last week to dismiss state-law claims arising from a COVID vaccine. See Politella v. Windham Southeast School Dist., No 23-AP-237, 2024 WL 3545717 (Vt. July 26, 2024) (to be published in A.3d). This was an easy case, and the PREP Act (aka the “Public Readiness
We are not speaking for anyone else (clients, colleagues, our firm, etc.) when we say that drug and device product liability cases should be patterned after the Vaccine Act (42 U.S.C. Section 300aa-1 et seq.). It is faster, fairer, more predictable, and cheaper for everyone. From the defense side, we like that actions under the
In simpler times for those of us of a certain age, what we learned in elementary school was often supplemented during Saturday mornings watching cartoons. While you could pick up some information watching Super Friends or Captain Caveman, the catchy songs and minimalist animation of Schoolhouse Rock! really helped to teach children a range
So plaintiffs learned in the In re: Gardasil Products Liability Litigation, MDL 3036, 2024 WL 1197919 (W.D.N.C. Mar. 20, 2024). Try as they did in 550-paragraph and 120-page complaints to muddle their claims, the court cleared away the muck and found what was left was almost all preempted by the Vaccine Act.
While pending
Bexis was a mere college freshman, and a Princeton football manager, on September 28, 1974. In the first game of the season, Rutgers played Princeton at Princeton’s old (and rather decrepit) Palmer Stadium. With about three minutes to go and Rutgers up 6-0, Rutgers fans swarmed the field and tore down both sets of goalposts. When Princeton tied the game up with less than half a minute left, without goalposts we could not kick an extra point. A two point conversion failed, and Rutgers escaped with a tie.
Not quite half a century later, Rutgers scored an actual win. This time Bexis is pleased. In Children’s Health Defense, Inc. v. Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey, ___ F.4th ___, 2024 WL 637353 (3d Cir. Feb. 15, 2024) (“CHD”), the Third Circuit affirmed the right of a publicly supported university to require COVID-19 vaccination as a prerequisite to its students’ in-person attendance. We blogged about this outcome in the district court, and its precedential affirmance is even more significant.Continue Reading Tear Down the Goalposts – Rutgers Wins
Of late, the Fifth Circuit has come in for some criticism over rulings involving science, the FDA, and medicines. But apparently even it has its limits—and Article III standing is one.
In Children’s Health Defense v. FDA, No. 23-50167, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 1528, 2024 WL 244938 (5th Cir. 1/23/24), a non-profit and several
Law school exams are usually exercises in issue spotting. Buried within the fact scenarios are various legal issues. The student earns points by identifying those issues and discussing how they should be resolved. Sequence also matters. It makes sense to walk through threshold issues, such as jurisdiction, first.
Goins v. Saint Elizabeth Medical Center, Inc.
Two years ago we posted on whether courts could exclude prospective jurors for cause because they weren’t vaccinated. Not much precedent was then available.
Now, with United States v. O’Lear, 2024 WL 79971 (6th Cir. Jan. 8, 2024), we get the first published appellate decision on the topic, affirming the exclusion. (The Ninth Circuit