Search results for: avandia

We have no personal knowledge of the litigation concerning GLP-1 receptor agonist medications and the Blog has not posted on it yet, but we do know something about litigation over widely used prescription medications.  Over the decades, there have been many drugs or classes of drugs that became “blockbusters” because they were widely prescribed to…

In Clemens v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 534 F.3d 1017 (9th Cir. 2008), the court, applying California law, correctly “decline[d plaintiff’s] invitation to create a new exception” to that state’s privity requirement “that would permit [plaintiff’s] action to proceed.”  Id. at 1023-24.  “[A] federal court sitting in diversity is not free to create new exceptions” to state law limiting liability.  Id. at 1024 (citing Day & Zimmermann, Inc. v. Challoner, 423 U.S. 3, 4 (1975)).  D&Z held, as we’ve discussed many times:

A federal court in a diversity case is not free to engraft onto those state rules exceptions or modifications which may commend themselves to the federal court, but which have not commended themselves to the State in which the federal court sits.

423 U.S. at 4.  And the Supreme Court has kept on saying this.  Erie principles prohibit “federal judges” from “displac[ing] the state law that would ordinarily govern with their own rules.”  Boyle v. United Technologies Corp., 487 U.S. 500, 517 (1988).  “[A] federal court is not free to apply a different rule however desirable it may believe it to be, and even though it may think that the state Supreme Court may establish a different rule in some future litigation.”  Hicks v. Feiock, 485 U.S. 624, 630 n.3 (1988).

But when updating the learned intermediary section of his treatise, Bexis came across a peculiar MDL holding, that because a defendant supposedly “cite[d] no cases” for the proposition “that the learned intermediary doctrine should apply to Plaintiffs’ . . . consumer protection claims” under the laws of California, Maryland, Illinois, and Florida, then “the learned intermediary doctrine should not apply” to claims brought by plaintiffs in any of these states.  In re Natera Prenatal Testing Litigation, 664 F. Supp.3d 995, 1007-08 (N.D. Cal. 2023).  The decision did not cite any precedent from any of these states (not even a trial court decision) affirmatively creating any exception to the learned intermediary rule for consumer fraud claims.  Id.Continue Reading Debunking Another Stunningly Wrong MDL Expansion of Liability

Our immediate reaction to In re Bard IVC Filters Products Liability Litigation, ___ F.4th ___, 2023 WL 5441793 (9th Cir. Aug. 24, 2023) (hereafter, “Jones” (the plaintiff’s name)), was “popcorn time” – pull up a chair and watch the other side fight like drunken pirates over the MDL spoils.  But there’s more to Jones than that.  The MDL-related “participation agreements” that Jones enforced are something like third-party litigation funding, in that they introduce another party to the settlement mix, even in non-MDL cases.  Defendants thus have a need to know about those agreements when settlement is raised in those cases.Continue Reading Of MDLs, Settlements, and Common Benefit Contracts

Confident prescribing physicians and implanting surgeons are the best “learned” intermediaries.  They’re experienced at what they do and aren’t intimidated by plaintiffs’ counsel and their threats of malpractice claims if they don’t testify the way plaintiffs want them to.  Confident learned intermediaries stand by their medical decisions.  Thus a confident learned intermediary’s testimony will defeat causation as a matter of law by stating that, notwithstanding a poor result, the treatment provided was standard of care, and even in hindsight they would not do anything different.  Because we encountered many stand up learned intermediary surgeons in the Bone Screw litigation, several of the relatively early decisions from the 1999-2001 timeframe are Bone Screw cases.Continue Reading Confident Learned Intermediaries Defeat Warning Causation

We recently came across the law review article, E. Lindenfeld, “Clear Evidence Clarified,” 75 Food & Drug L.J. 346 (2020).  Since it cited and critiqued a number of our blogposts, we thought it was appropriate to reply.

Our initial impression is that the Lindenfeld article is comparatively reasonable – that is, compared to some prior…

Not too long ago, our search keyed to Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Albrecht, 139 S. Ct. 1668 (2019), picked up the following article in Trial Magazine:  Abaray & Harman, “Navigating Preemption After Merck,” 56 Trial 20 (Jan. 2020).  For anybody who doesn’t know, Trial is the house organ of the American…

We’ve used the phrase “one-two punch” before in the blog to describe a pair of legal decisions concerning the same product.  Usually, our clients have been on the winning side, but that’s not always true, particularly in cases coming out of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.  In November, the Pennsylvania appellate courts, in gynecomastia litigation, dealt defendants two…

Drug & Device Resources

Bexis’ Book

FDA-regulated products now account for an estimated one-fifth of overall economic activity in the U.S. They have also been the focus of a litigation explosion. This timely guide covers all aspects of litigation involving drugs, medical devices, vaccines and other FDA-regulated prescription products.
Learn More About This Book