Several weeks ago, we reported on Greisberg v. Boston Scientific Corp., 2022 WL 1261318 (3d Cir. 2022), in which the Third Circuit affirmed dismissal of a failure-to-warn claim because the plaintiff had failed to allege facts sufficient to overcome New Jersey’s “compliance presumption,” a statutory presumption (adopted by numerous states) under which a medical
510(k) Clearance
Good and Bad in IVC Filter Decision out of the Middle District of Tennessee
By Rachel B. Weil on

We tend to favor a “glass half full” outlook. We are preternaturally sunshiny during our daily “how was your day” calls from the 86-year-old Drug and Device Law Dowager Countess. (We have not mentioned, for example, that our aging dog has begun sleeping most of the day and barking most of the night, resulting in…
Evidence of 510(k) Clearance Is Relevant and Admissible, Says E.D. Pa. IVC Filter Judge
By Rachel B. Weil on

As we write this, it is a glorious Labor Day Monday in the suburbs of Philadelphia. We are pleased to confirm that the Drug and Device Law Rock Climber retrieved her dogs last week, though not before we rushed to the vet one last time, this time to address the Pom’s allergic skin reaction to…
Hoosier Daddy, Part 510(k): FDA Clearance is Admissible
By Stephen McConnell on
Mostly Favorable MIL Rulings in IVC Filters Litigation
By Rachel B. Weil on