Search results for: opioid

We generally keep our distance from medical cannabis/marijuana.  We’re not one of those blogs.  But if legal holdings of interest to us happens to involve cannabis, we will comment.  Thus, we bring you Schmidt v. Schmidt, Kirifides & Rassias, PC, ___ A.3d ___, 2023 WL 7502499 (Pa. Commw. Nov. 14, 2023), holding that…

As we mentioned in our recent American Law Institute (“ALI”) medical monitoring post, the other side is engaged in an ongoing attempt to ram recognition of a new tort for recovery of medical monitoring expenses by plaintiffs with no present injury (“no-injury medical monitoring” for short) through the ALI. One aspect of Bexis’ activity in opposition to that was to conduct detailed 50-state analysis of no-injury medical monitoring, once we determined that the ALI reporter’s material was both biased and incomplete.  We stand behind our research and have nothing to hide. Thus, there’s no reason for us not to make this same information available to our blog readers, so that’s what we’re doing here.  For long-time subscribers to the blog, please consider what follows to be an update to, and replacement of, our 2009 50-state survey on medical monitoring – ironically also prompted by ALI-related activity.

So here goes:Continue Reading Medical Monitoring – 50-State Survey

It is looking very much as if the U.S. Supreme Court will hear a case this upcoming October term that will permit it, at long last, to inter the Chevron doctrine. Under that doctrine, if there is ambiguity about the scope of rule making powers provided to an agency by Congress, courts will defer to…

If we have said it once, we have said it a hundred times:  medical product manufacturers are not insurers of their products.  Almost as frequently uttered would be that strict liability is not the same thing as absolute liability.  In the show position might be that the temporal relationship between a new medical condition and…

So, another year has passed.  2022 is in the books and the republic still stands, even if Roe v. Wade (and, soon, Twitter) do not.  The COVID-19 pandemic – if not COVID-19 itself, which has instead become endemic – is largely over, except for some probably PREP Act preempted shouting.

For the Blog, the end of the year means that it’s time for our annual celebration of the Drug & Device Law Blog’s top ten decisions of the year.  Some of these cases establish important legal principles, such as preemption, Rule 702 expert exclusion (don’t say Daubert), or the learned intermediary rule.  Others are important because they affect large numbers of cases gathered in the increasingly dysfunctional federal multi-district litigation system.  Some do both.  In either event, these decisions make the legal world at least somewhat less dangerous for our clients and (not incidentally) more favorable for us defense lawyers.Continue Reading The Thrill of Victory – The Ten Best Prescription Drug/Medical Device Decisions of 2022

Today’s case, Bradley v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., 2021 Cal. App. LEXIS 451, 2021 WL 2176797 (Cal. Ct. App. May 28, 2021), is not about drug or device product liability, but its discussion of deference to administrative agencies is interesting. There are several different but closely related doctrines that either require or permit judicial deference…

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