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
Adding to the growing favorable precedent concerning state human tissue shield statutes is Heitman v. Aziyo Biologics, Inc., 2024 WL 4019318 (N.D. Fla. Jul. 22, 2024).
The plaintiff alleged that he was infected with tuberculosis from an unfortunately contaminated human tissue allograft that was implanted in his spine during surgery. The plaintiff alleged
Although today’s decision involves a medical product, it focuses on an online marketplace rather than a drug or device manufacturer. And by online marketplace we mean the delivery service that has become ubiquitous in almost all of our lives—Amazon. The decision is significant because it finds Amazon, as a shipper rather than a seller, does not have an independent duty to investigate risks of the products it ships.Continue Reading Pennsylvania Federal Court Holds Online Marketplace Has No Duty to Inspect Goods
Lokkart v. Aziyo Biologics, Inc., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111265 (C.D. Cal. May 29, 2024), is yet another case arising from the unfortunate contamination of a batch of tissue allograft with a disease. We have written about similar cases before. These cases have consistently produced favorable precedent concerning state human tissue shield statutes (in
We don’t get blood shield statute cases very often, but here is one involving a human tissue-based spinal bone graft. In Sherrill v. Spinalgraft Technologies, LLC, et al., 2024 WL 1979452 (W.D.N.C May 3, 2024), the plaintiff had undergone spinal surgery. That surgery included the use of processed bone graft material, which is “made
We have seen a number of consumer fraud class action cases brought over a range of fairly ticky tacky issues about OTC drugs and consumer products. California law and courts have been fairly favorable to these cases, which follow a pattern of a test plaintiff seeking to represent some large class because (s)he claims to
This post is not from the Reed Smith or Holland & Knight sides of the blog.
Sometimes the intersection of the law and the facts are simply undeniable. Such was true of the fourth bellwether case selected in the Bard hernia mesh MDL–Bryan v. C.R. Bard, Inc., 2024 WL 385108 (S.D. Ohio Feb.
We offer today’s case as a good recitation of Alabama warranty and fraud law. Both have precise pleading requirements that plaintiff failed to meet in Morris v. Angiodynamics, Inc., 2024WL 476884 (M.D. Ala. Feb. 7, 2024).
Plaintiff was implanted with a port used to deliver his chemotherapy treatments. About five months after implant, plaintiff
As insightful and modest as the Blog can be, we are not infallible. Every once in a while, two posts get written on the same decision, sometimes because we try to make sure a new post goes up every non-holiday weekday of the year. Because of the aforementioned modesty, however, we are hesitant to deprive
We don’t see many cases involving human tissue, but medical products derived from human tissue are actually quite common. Skin replacement products, tissue-engineered cartilage, compounds for treating bone fractures and tumors. Those kinds of things. Just yesterday in our annual Ten Best/Ten Worst Cases webinar we discussed a case involving transplanted human eye tissue.