We write from Tampa, Florida, where we attended the bridal shower of a lifelong friend’s daughter. In a happy coincidence, the event fell on the last weekend of a two-week stretch of dog shows in which our puppy’s sire, a spectacular white corded Standard Poodle named Joel, was being shown. A lovely interlude, except for
Today’s case is Glover v. Bausch & Lomb, Inc., — A.3d –, 2022 WL 2035805 (Ct. S. Ct. Jun. 7, 2022). And all we can say is Boo! Not a Halloween, Casper-type Boo! But a real Queen of Putrescence-type Boo! Because unfortunately, the Connecticut Supreme Court, responding to a certified question from the
Today’s guest post is by Courtland Chillingworth, here at Reed Smith. His timely post concerns an excellent decision by the Connecticut Supreme Court from December, 2021 – a decision that we, frankly, missed initially. As readers can tell from what follows, this decision was good enough that, had we not been asleep at
We are back from a weeklong vacation in Greece, with time split between Athens and a lovely, tiny, lightly-touristed island called Symi. We offer these observations:
As we discussed in our recent 50-state survey on failure-to-report claims, plaintiff-side allegations seeking to predicate “warning” liability on a defendant’s allegedly failing to comply with FDCA adverse event reporting claims are “relatively new.” That’s because, like so many other novel claims we’ve seen lately, it’s a transparent dodge to avoid preemption. We said
Today we have another guest post from friend-of-the-Blog, Dick Dean at Tucker Ellis. He’s familiar with the ongoing Pradaxa litigation and is pleased with the preemption pummeling Pradaxa plaintiffs have been receiving. Here’s his post about yet another favorable decision from the state-court Pradaxa proceedings in Connecticut. With decisions like this, who needs snap
A great woman once said “When they go low, we go high.” Apropos of nothing in particular these days, we have been thinking about the issue of tone recently. For instance, what is the exact line between a negative political advertisement and a positive one? Are there circumstances where a candidate might suspend negative ads
Not long ago, in our “Post-Albrecht Preemption Pummels Pradaxa Plaintiffs” post we discussed several recent favorable preemption decisions in product liability litigation involving that drug: Ridings v. Maurice, ___ F. Supp.3d ___, 2020 WL 1264178 (Mag. W.D. Mo. March 16, 2020), Adkins v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 2020 WL 1704646 (Conn.
Various plaintiff-side consortia have taken it into their heads to sue every manufacturer of so-called “novel oral anticoagulants” because these products, gasp, can cause serious, and sometime fatal, bleeding incidents. Fortunately, on the whole the plaintiffs haven’t done so well with these cases – losing almost all the trials – because jurors can be taught
So said the Connecticut state appellate court last week. It’s a pretty simple equation. Like No shoes, no shirt, no service. No pain, no gain. No risk, no reward. In other words, you can’t get one without the other. In Ferrari v. Johnson & Johnson, Inc., — A.3d —, 2019 WL 2167849