We reported last year on a case in which the Arizona Court of Appeals allowed FDA-approved drug warnings to define the standard of care for a physician’s informed consent. Why does that matter? Well, in most every jurisdiction, a plaintiff bringing an action for medical negligence has to produce expert opinion that the defendant breached
Today we discuss an excellent express preemption decision from the District of Arizona, Skinner v. Small Bone Innovations Inc., 2024 WL 3639296 (D. Ariz. Aug. 2, 2024).
This decision involved the Scandinavian Total Ankle Replacement device (“STAR”). The STAR® Ankle is a Class III medical device subject to the Medical Device Amendments’ express preemption provision, 21 U.S.C. § 360k(a). This was Plaintiff’s second bite at the apple: The Court had already granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss but with leave to amend to attempt to state a parallel claim. See Skinner v. Small Bone Innovations Inc., No. CV-23-01051-PHX-MTL, 2023 WL 6318014, at *6 (D. Ariz. Sept. 28, 2023). After striking out in round one, Plaintiff fared no better in round two.Continue Reading Slam-Dunk Express Preemption Decision from the District of Arizona
Law school taught us that design defect, manufacturing defect, and failure to warn are the big troika of product liability theories. Real life practice taught us that failure to warn is far and away the most common and dangerous claim we face. It is easy for plaintiffs to allege and easy for juries to follow
We made our annual pilgrimage to the Arizona Cactus League last week. As we’ve done for the past 20-plus years, we rendered homage to our favorite sport, baseball, and, more importantly, to our sisters, one of whom lives quite close to the San Diego Padres Spring Training field in Peoria, AZ, and the other of
The defendants in Mixson v. C.R. Bard, Inc., ___ F. Supp.3d ___, (N.D. Fla. Sept. 16, 2022) (“Mixson I”), and Mixson v. C.R. Bard, Inc., 2022 WL 7581737 (N.D. Fla. Sept. 23, 2022) (“Mixson II”), by no means won everything, but what they won was more important than what they didn’t, so we’re OK with the results.Continue Reading Mixson Somewhat Mixed, But We’ll Take It
Quick puppy update: the standard poodle puppies, one of which will be our first-ever show dog in a house filled with canine and feline rescued ragamuffins, are four weeks old today. All eight are fat and healthy, despite a scare with one white male puppy a week or so ago. We will meet them this
The pelvic mesh case of the week – McBroom v. Ethicon, Inc., 2022 WL 604889 (D. Arizona March 1, 2022) – focuses on the regulatory status of the device. We always knew it was an important issue, and McBroom provides yet another reason why that is so.
As you must know by now, the
Bexis has just returned from a week’s vacation in Acadia National Park in Maine. After being rained out for a couple of days due to a stray hurricane, he climbed four mountains in three days – the Precipice Trail up Mt. Champlain; the West Face Cadillac Mountain trail up that mountain, and the Jordan Cliffs/Deer
This blogger’s work from home experience has included a lot of time with two teenagers. Granted, two relatively smart, funny, and generally OK to be around teenagers. But teenagers, nonetheless. So, I’ve been witness to some true common senseless moments. Like twenty minutes of trying to start the lawnmower before checking if it had gas.
This post comes only from the Cozen O’Connor side of the blog.
If you’re a defendant in a drug or device lawsuit in Arizona court, you have a good chance of avoiding punitive damages. That’s because Arizona has a statute, a good one. It exempts manufacturers, including drug and device manufacturers, from liability for