Photo of Bexis

Arbitration, if done right, is an effective, speedy, and low-cost alternative to civil litigation of all kinds, which is why the other side (or at least the lawyers representing them) hates it.  Unfortunately, with prescription medical products − and their necessary learned intermediary physicians – arbitration doesn’t come up very often in our line of work, although nothing inherent in personal injury litigation precludes mandatory arbitration.

But it might happen more, in the future.  In a think piece we published a couple of years ago, on software liability, we identified arbitration as one of the consequences in litigation where intermediaries (“learned” or otherwise) were out of the picture.  “In direct-to-consumer contexts, providers routinely seek to use contracts such as click-wrap licenses to allocate software-related liability including limitations on liability, forum selection clauses, compulsory arbitration and similar protective measures.”

But our clients might, at least in certain situations, be able to enjoy both the learned intermediary rule as well as mandatory arbitration.Continue Reading Oye Cómo Va?  To Arbitration.

Photo of Steven Boranian

We first mused over arbitration and drug/medical device claims exactly six years ago, when the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333 (2011).  In that widely studied opinion, the Supreme Court held that the Federal Arbitration Act preempted state laws limiting the enforceability of class