Bexis recently returned from speaking at the 2022 National Vaccine Law Conference. As a veteran of both the DTP and thimerosal vaccine litigations, he was generally interested in vaccine-related product liability issues, so he stayed for the entire conference. He was most interested in learning more about the compensation systems provided by the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act and the PREP Act. The Vaccine Act, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10 et seq., seemed most relevant, since the layers of preemption imposed by the PREP Act make product liability litigation over use of PREP Act “covered countermeasures” (which include vaccines) extremely unlikely.
Search results for: PREP Act
“Information and Belief” Do Not a Fact Make, Says the Southern District of New York
By Rachel B. Weil on
We just bought tickets for ourselves and a dear visiting colleague to see Barry Manilow in concert next month. We love everything about Barry – his songwriting (we orchestrated many a youthful breakup with “Even Now” played over and over again), his chutzpah (just shy of his 79th birthday, he premiered a new musical,…
Supreme Court Holds that the Violation of a Statutory Right Is Insufficient To Establish Article III Standing in a Damages Action
By Andrew Tauber on
To bring suit in federal court, a plaintiff must have “Article III standing.” That is to say, the plaintiff must have a personal stake in the suit’s outcome. This is true whether a plaintiff is suing individually or as a member of a class.
Late last week, in TransUnion v. Ramirez, — S. Ct.…
Zantac Chronicles IV – The Preponderance of Preemption
By Bexis on
The first three significant Zantac MDL decisions, which we chronicled here, here, and here, were all issued on December 31, 2020. Today’s installment, In re Zantac (Ranitidine) Products Liability Litigation, ___ F. Supp.3d ___, 2021 WL 76433 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 8, 2021), was issued this year. For those of you who…
Plaintiffs Cannot Invoke the Res Ipsa Loquitur Doctrine—or a Laundry List of Alleged Regulatory Violations—as a Substitute for Pleading Facts
By Andrew Tauber on
Today we report on a recent decision dismissing manufacturing-defect, warranty, and failure-to-warn claims arising from an allegedly defective breast implant. Although the decision, D’Addario v. Johnson & Johnson, 2021 WL 1214896 (D.N.J. 2021), does not stray far from the beaten path, it covers ground worth revisiting. The decision is a useful (if cursory) reminder…
Of MDL Plaintiff Fact Sheets and Sham Affidavits
By Bexis on
This post is neither written nor reviewed by the Dechert side of the Blog.
The recent decision in McLaughlin v. Bayer Essure, Inc., 2020 WL 1625549 (E.D. Pa. April 2, 2020), is massive (28 Westlaw pages) and devoted largely to review of a special master’s determination of individualized statute of limitations issues for some…
This Is The Correct Standard For Judging Predominance In Class Actions
By Steven Boranian on
The Third Circuit issued a gem of an opinion on class certification last month, and we like it because it puts a laser focus on what a plaintiff has to prove to get a class certified and the district court’s duty to examine and resolve disputes at the class certification stage. In In re Lamictal…
New Jersey Product Liability Act Knocks out Design Defect, Manufacturing, Warning, Warranty, and Fraud Claims Against IVC Filter
By Stephen McConnell on
A couple of weeks ago we compared New Jersey litigation with New Jersey food and decided we liked the food better. No aspersions were intended. After all, we grew up in New Jersey and still worship at the altars of Seton Hall Prep, Bruce Springsteen, and the New York football Giants. Anyway, we might need…
Massachusetts Requires Expert Testimony for Pharmacist Malpractice Claim
By Michelle Yeary on
We are going to take today’s decision a little out of order because we think the outcome is fairly easily surmised from our title – plaintiff couldn’t sustain his claim because he didn’t have admissible expert testimony. But before we get to the substance of the opinion, at the end the court was called on…
Yes, Virginia (Utah, Actually), There Is §510(k) Medical Device Preemption
By Bexis on
We’ve explained at length why Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr, 518 U.S. 470 (1996), is an anachronism with respect to preemption, given the complete overhaul that Congress gave to §510(k). Still, strange things happen when preemption meets product liability, and there seems to be a conspiracy of silence among judges with respect to current FDA…