It’s the most wonderful time of year, or at least Sirius channel 79 keeps telling us that. Too much food, too much drink, too much family, and not quite enough presents. Or, at least, not enough of the right presents. Or, maybe, lots of those veritable mixed bags. You know – a six pack of
Today’s case, Hartney v. Zoetis, Inc., 2025 WL 2924661 (D.N.J. Oct. 15, 2025), is about a canine medicine allegedly gone wrong. But lest you think the DDL blog has gone to the dogs, this case addresses issues such as preemption and learned intermediary that are key in cases with thumbed, supposedly sapient, biped plaintiffs.
Mind you
This week we could not resist writing about a good result from an always interesting jurisdiction (Louisiana) involving one of our all-time favorite defense lawyers (Hi, Lori Cohen).
In McGuire v. B. Braun Med. Inc., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 184172, 2025 WL 2689205 (E.D. Louisiana Sept. 19, 2025), the district court granted the defendants’ motion to
Plaintiffs bring product liability suits against medical device manufacturers when outcomes fall short of expectations. Such as when a bone plate—a device surgically implanted to stabilize broken bones and enable proper healing—breaks. Now indulge us for a moment because Bexis and Yeary learned a lot about bone screws and orthopedic devices back in the day.
For several years now, the Valsartan MDL has been something of a poster child for the problems with modern serial product liability litigation. It started with questionable data coming out of a questionable lab, leading to publicity and regulatory actions that outpaced reliable evidence of increased risk from an alleged carcinogenic contamination. It snowballed
Today’s guest post is from Reed Smith’s Matt Jacobson. He addresses the latest and greatest result from litigation that has been generating favorable decisions nationwide applying various states’ so-called “blood shield” statutes (practically every state has one) that declare the use of human cells or tissue in medical treatment to be services rather than products, which has the effect of limiting liability to negligence. As always our guest posters deserve 100% of the credit (and any blame) for their work.
**********
Milovich v. Aziyo Biologics, Inc., No. 1:24-cv-01208-CL, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50935 (D. Or. Feb. 24, 2025), involves Oregon’s human blood and tissue shield statute. The Drug & Device Law Blog has written about similar cases before, but this one might be the best. Blood shield laws have been around for over 60 years. They sound like something that Dracula should fear, along with a knife through the heart, the sun, holy objects, and garlic. But they are not something that should scare anyone who manufactures blood or tissue based products. While states have different statutory language, the gist of blood shield laws is that blood transfusions and transplants are a service and not a sale (Dracula would agree he is performing a service), thus barring claims for breach of warranty and strict liability.Continue Reading Guest Post – The Sun Is Not Setting on Oregon’s Blood Shield Statute
We’ve written before about the long-running Muldoon v. DePuy Orthopedics lawsuit. For one thing, it’s been around forever – its facts are almost as old as the Blog. As we stated here:
Muldoon . . . is a suit over hip-replacement surgery conducted in 2007. Suit was not filed, however, until 2015 – undoubtedly Muldoon is another example of the flotsam and jetsam dredged up by MDL lawyer solicitation. So Muldoon was stale from the beginning. But it got worse. For some eight years, Muldoon sat in the horribly mismanaged Pinnacle Hip MDL in Texas. It appears that nothing at all happened during those years . . . [until] 2023, when the case was ultimately remanded, without comment. So, due to the combined lassitude of the plaintiffs and MDL management, the suit is nearly 14½ years post-surgery, and only now being addressed on the pleadings.
(citations and quotation marks omitted).
Finally, in Muldoon v. DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., 2025 U.S. Dist. Lexis 34013 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 25, 2025), it was dismissed with prejudice. And in the end, the plaintiff didn’t even put up a fight. Faced with the defendant’s latest dismissal motion, “[p]laintiff has declined to file any opposition.” Id. at *2. What was at stake this time were the claims that had survived the defendant’s first dismissal motion against the plaintiff’s absurdly excessive 18-count post-MDL amended complaint. We had some words to say about that complaint as well: “It is a dog’s breakfast. Or it is what our dogs deliver to our yard right after consuming their breakfast.”Continue Reading Muldoon Dismissed – The End of an Error?
Did it seem to you in law school that sometimes the hardest part of reading cases was not deciphering some obscure legal principle — say, the difference between larceny by trick and taking under false pretenses, or the Rule in Shelley’s Case, or pretty much anything in Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code —
Blair v. Abbvie Inc., 2025 WL. 57198 (W.D. Pa. Jan. 9, 2025), is, from the defense perspective, a favorable opinion dismissing (some with prejudice, some with leave to amend) all counts of the plaintiff’s complaint. The opinion is a bit odd, in a semi, unintentionally-ironic sort of way, because it faults the plaintiff for
This has been a big year for blood and tissue statute decisions. Given their subject matter, we’ve previously lamented that the decisions didn’t fall closer to Halloween. While not quite coinciding with our doorbells ringing and handing out candy to the little ones, today’s decision is close enough for a little seasonal digression.Continue Reading Another Blood and Tissue Statute Win