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
It’s a case that pre- and post-dates the IVC Filters MDL– Ocasio v. C.R. Bard, Inc., 2020 WL 3288026 (M.D. Fla. Jun. 18, 2020). In fact, this case got through summary judgment and Daubert rulings in Florida before being transferred to the MDL in Arizona in 2015. Upon its return to Florida, only two
Almost two months ago we posted on the magistrate’s Report and Recommendation in Drescher v. Bracco Diagnostics Inc., 2020 WL 699878 (D. Ariz. Jan. 31, 2020). Back when our co-workers didn’t include furry, four-legged friends. When we weren’t also re-learning high school geometry. And when pajamas and slippers weren’t acceptable work attire. Many things
We don’t write a lot about our neighboring state of Arizona, but a recent hip replacement case in the District of Arizona caught our eye. We lived in Arizona for a year back in the mid-1990s, and it is a genuinely interesting and underestimated place. The 2010 census results have Phoenix as the sixth largest
We’ve brought you some great news from the gadolinium contrast agent litigation last year and the hits just keeping on coming. This time out of federal court in Arizona. And while the court is giving plaintiff another stab at re-pleading her case, we are doubtful plaintiff will be able to cure the deficiencies identified in
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. A jack of all trades is a master of none. These cutesy little phrases throw some derision toward one who possesses some knowledge in a bunch of areas. Representing drug and device companies in litigation can make a lawyer reject the negative interpretation of these phrases. We have
We have always thought that regulatory approval or clearance of a drug or medical device should weigh heavily against punitive damages, or even preclude punitive damages altogether. An Arizona statute says exactly that, and now a trial court in Phoenix has applied that statute to dismiss punitive damages in a case involving a medical device
Skin in the game. Horse in the race. Dog in the hunt. Whatever “it” is – we don’t have “it” in today’s case. Ansley v. Banner Health Care is a suit brought by plaintiffs who had received damages awards for injuries that required treatment at various hospitals seeking to enjoin those hospitals from enforcing liens
We’ve always hated the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Stengel v. Medtronic Inc., 704 F.3d 1224 (9th Cir. 2013) (applying Arizona law), holding that allegations of failure to provide adverse event reports (“AERs”) to the FDA created a viable, and unpreempted, state law claim. Now our #2 worst case of 2013 is effectively gone. Kaput.
Imagine a conspiracy so vast that it includes not only your usual plaintiff-side fantasy of the FDA conspiring with a drug company, but also high FDA officials, President Obama, Robert Mercer (noted Trump supporter and reputed Breitbart financier), a number of other investors, and just for good measure President and Hillary Clinton.
Larry Klaman