Long ago, it seemed that large-scale drug or device litigation was usually spurred on by a recall, market withdrawal, or major labeling change describing a new risk or limiting the scope of product use. The plaintiff lawyers these days seem to be more willing to put their energy into attacking currently marketed products without triggering
We’ve gleefully detailed the plaintiffs’ utter failure in the Zostavax MDL to establish causation. Now, the Gardasil MDL likewise seems well on the way to a place on the list (along with Bone Screw, Aredia/Zometa, Taxotere, and Zantac) of MDLs that plaintiffs’ counsel wish they’d given a miss. Maybe plaintiffs will
Taking pot shots at “Big Pharma” is easy. Crack a joke about Big Pharma and you are sure to get a laugh. Amirite?
That is not to say there is never a fair point or two to be made about pharmaceutical development or marketing, or health care and the delivery of same in this country.
We do not mean the German Renaissance painter and thinker Albrecht Dürer. His work, while a poor cousin to that of some famous contemporaries to the south, remains as is. We mean the Supreme Court’s decision in Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Albrecht, 587 U.S. 299 (2019), which has been touted for the
We recently received a copy of Pfaff v. Merck & Co., No. 12-md-02331 (BMC), slip op. (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 9, 2022), and the decision has a number of useful – for our side – rulings concerning branded drug preemption post-Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Albrecht, 139 S. Ct. 1668 (U.S. 2019).
Continue Reading Another Favorable Post-Albrecht MDL Preemption Decision
Two of longest recent entries in our Post-Levine Drug/Vaccine Preemption Cheat Sheet are Pradaxa wins. Adkins v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., slip op., 2020 WL 1704646 (Conn. Super. March 13, 2020) (#106), and Ridings v. Maurice, ___ F. Supp.3d ___, 2020 WL 1264178 (Mag. W.D. Mo. March 16, 2020) (#108). There’s also
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
One of the more peculiar things about Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Albrecht, 139 S. Ct. 1668 (U.S. 2019) (“Albrecht”), is the almost off-hand way that the majority (made up mostly of justices that have opposed preemption in closer cases) wandered away from the procedural preemption issues that the Court was
Bexis is updating the preemption chapter of his prescription medical product liability treatise, and with Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Albrecht, 139 S. Ct. 1668 (U.S. 2019), being so new, he collected a bunch of law firm blogs/client updates about the case to see what potential issues other lawyers out there might
We’ve been posting about this case since 2016 when the district court first dismissed plaintiff’s failure to warn claim as preempted on the grounds that there was clear evidence the FDA would have rejected the warning plaintiff sought. We celebrated again in 2017 when the Tenth Circuit affirmed that decision. Since then we’ve been