We are back “stateside,” after a trip to London and Florence. We loved both, especially the Tower of London, Highclere Castle (used for the filming of Downton Abbey – how very cool to walk through the rooms we watched with such pleasure for six seasons) and, of course, the breathtaking David. But this is pretty
When we see a court dismiss a pharma product liability case on preemption grounds, we simply have to write about it. Otherwise, we’d be required to turn in our bar card, our defense hack card, and our friendly neighborhood DDL blogger card.
In Polson v. AstraZeneca Ltd. Partnership, 2023 WL 2770687 (D.Conn. April 4, 2023)
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.