The learned intermediary rule – that prescription medical product warnings are directed to (and written to be understood by) the professional medical personnel who prescribe them – is as close to unanimous as any tort doctrine that we know of. We keep a running tab on the 50 states, and the rule has support in
Search pharmacy liability
Maryland Law Does Not Cower – Instead Public Nuisance Bites the Dust
In a pair of decisions, Express Scripts, Inc. v. Anne Arundel County, ___ A.3d ___, 2026 WL 797872 (Md. March 23, 2026), an opioid case, and Mayor & City Council of Baltimore v. B.P. P.L.C., ___ A.3d ___, 2026 WL 809501 (Md. March 24, 2025), a climate change case, the Supreme Court of…
Untimely Piggybacking
We almost never post on securities decisions, but we’re making an exception today. Our readers know that the initiation of MDLs and state court coordinated proceedings—often loaded with unvetted and bogus claims—can drive down defendants’ stock prices. When that happens the plaintiffs’ class action bar swoops in and files securities class actions, essentially trying to make the same defendant pay twice for the same claims. Call it the “unholy alliance.” Today’s decision (another one arising out of the Zantac litigation) is notable because it strikes directly at the linkage between mass torts and the securities class actions that try to play piggyback. In Roofers Loc. No. 149 Pension Fund v. GSK PLC, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44087 (E.D. Pa. March 4, 2026), the information contained in mass tort filings and accompanying discovery were enough to bar the securities class action based on the statute of limitations.
Continue Reading Untimely PiggybackingA Drug Dealer? Seriously?
We’ve blogged about aspects of the Model Drug Dealer Liability Act before. Over 20 states have enacted versions of the model act in an effort to shift liability for harm caused by illegal drugs to the drug dealers and traffickers who sell and promote illegal drug use. Those are not normally the types of claims of interest to our readers. But, given that we’ve been blogging this week about fraudulent and harmful medical procedures and junk science in mass torts, maybe it’s no surprise that today’s decision deals with an attempt to use a version of the model act as a vehicle for finding liability against a major distributor of legitimate, FDA-approved drugs. McKesson Corp. v. Bolton, 2026 WL 394505 (Ga. App. Feb. 12, 2026).
Continue Reading A Drug Dealer? Seriously?Running the Table – The Ten Best Prescription Drug/Medical Device Decisions of 2025
A year ago, Bexis thought this would be the last blogpost he would ever write, and that he would retire along with 2025. Not gonna happen – at least not yet, thanks to Reed Smith making him an offer he couldn’t refuse. Bexis will be stepping back from some things, but not from the Blog. …
Utah Court Sides With Prescription Drug Manufacturers On 340B Contract Pharmacies
We recently attended the ACI Drug & Medical Device Seminar in New York, where we always enjoy catching up with old friends, making new acquaintances, and hearing what’s new in our drug and device sandbox. This year we spoke on the extensive and active litigation that is currently going on over the 340B drug pricing…
Getting Noticed – Receiving FDA-Related Judicial Notice
This post sort of got away from us. We started with the proposition that our prescription medical product clients frequently move to dismiss cases, and thus seek to get courts to take judicial notice of FDA-related documents in product liability litigation involving their products. Judicial notice in cases involving FDA regulated products can be of great assistance on pleadings-based motions (Rule 12(b)(6) and judgment on the pleadings) because judicial notice is an exception to the usual limitation of such motions to what plaintiffs plead – or, equally importantly, fail to plead – in their complaints. Not only do judicially noticeable documents fill in facts that plaintiffs deliberately omit, but they can also defeat contrary factual allegations that the documents establish are untrue. This is an important exception to the Rule 12 mantra that challenged allegations are to be taken as true. Instead, allegations in a complaint are not credited where contradicted by judicially noticeable documents. E.g., Fuqua v. Santa Fe County Sheriff’s Office, ___ F.4th ___, 2025 WL 3072794, at *4 (10th Cir. Nov. 4, 2025); Jeffery v. City of New York, 113 F.4th 176, 179 (2d Cir. 2024); Clark v. Stone, 998 F.3d 287, 298 (6th Cir. 2021); Massey v. Ojaniit, 759 F.3d 343, 353 (4th Cir. 2014); Kaempe v. Myers, 367 F.3d 958, 963 (D.C. Cir. 2004); Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988 (9th Cir. 2001). So judicial notice can overcome contrary pleadings.
Continue Reading Getting Noticed – Receiving FDA-Related Judicial NoticeN.D. Cal. Remands Case because Plaintiff Could Amend to Add Non-Diverse Defendant
Removal-rama continues. Art (if that is what you can call blogposting) mimics life. We have not just been blogging about removal cases lately, we’ve also been removing cases to federal court with startling frequency. And it’s been working. Twice, even with a removal basis that might be characterized as a jump ball, plaintiffs have not…
Still Preempting OTC Drug Claims Over Alleged Contamination
Not too long ago, we tried to extrapolate from a doctoral thesis on quantum dots to lessons for litigation. That “[q]uantum dots are between one-billionth of a meter and one-hundred-millionth of a meter in size” emphasized that “appreciating the scope and scale of what is being discussed can be critical.” In the spate of litigation…
You Can’t Dodge the Federal Vaccine Act
Here at the DDL Blog, we love phrases denoting that two things are acting together or in close succession to produce a result. We have written more than once on the “one-two punch” of causation and implied preemption, and who doesn’t appreciate a good “double whammy” in whatever context? Cases with…