Search results for: opioid

This is from the Holland & Knight side of the Blog only.

If you have followed the Blog, then you will know that we have long touted the importance of Erie deference by federal courts sitting in diversity.  We have also questioned the expansion of tort law to allow governmental entities to use public nuisance to shift the costs of governmental services to private entities without calling it a tax.  We have even discussed the issue of abrogation of common law claims, which can be seen as a lingering source of unchecked liability, when a state enacts a product liability act.  For various reasons, however, we have largely declined to comment on the use of public nuisance as the primary theory for governmental entities as plaintiffs in opioid litigation.  Today’s post is an exception, and it deals with a pretty significant decision, which we think is overdue.Continue Reading Ohio Does Not Recognize Public Nuisance Claims For Products

This is our second go round with Vardouniotis v. Pfizer, Inc., Case No. 152029/2019 (N.Y. Sup.).  When we posted about the court’s decision on defendant’s motion to dismiss, we were resigned to shrug our shoulders and accept that “nothing’s perfect.”  It’s two years later and we’re still shrugging.

After the court allowed plaintiff’s negligence; gross…

We could care less about almost everything in Driver v. Naranjo, 2024 WL 2869367 (S.D. Cal. June 6, 2024), which dismissed an overly litigious pro se prisoner’s product liability and other claims involving his purportedly forced use of a prescription drug.

But Driver’s first footnote raises an interesting question of judicial notice – whether notice can extend to the “characteristics” of prescription medical products. Driver held that “[t]he Court may take judicial notice of medical facts regarding prescription drugs, their active ingredients and effects.”  2024 WL 2869367, at *1 n.1.  The opinion cited two cases for that proposition, United States v. Howard, 381 F.3d 873, 880 & n.7 (9th Cir. 2004) (taking judicial notice of certain effects of a drug listed in the product warnings reprinted in the Physician’s Desk Reference (“PDR”)); and Lolli v. County of Orange, 351 F.3d 410, 419 (9th Cir. 2003) (“Well-known medical facts are the types of matters of which judicial notice may be taken.”) (citation omitted).Continue Reading Are Prescription Medical Product Characteristics Subject to Judicial Notice?

Today’s guest post is by Sherry Knutson and Brenda Sweet of Tucker Ellis, and concerns the recently passed legislative repeal of a Michigan statute that, for several decades had effectively immunized prescription drugs from ordinary product liability actions under Michigan law. For background, here’s a prior blogpost that focused on the now-repealed statute. As…

For as long as we have been representing drug and device companies in product liability litigation, the plaintiffs have accused our clients of “buying the science.”  Sometimes, this has allegedly been by funding studies or offering support to outside researchers such as free product or access to administrative support.  Sometimes, this has allegedly been by…

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…

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