Those of you following the fortunes of COVID-19-related litigation should check out these two recently decided cases: Garcia v. Welltower OpCo Group LLC, 2021 WL 492581 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 10, 2021), and Fields v. Brown, 2021 WL 510620 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 11, 2021).
Garcia, the older of the two (by one day),
We’ve already commented about the broad scope of tort immunity conferred by the March, 2020 Notice of Declaration under the Public Readiness & Emergency Preparedness Act (“PREP Act”), 42 U.S.C. §247d-6d. That original immunity covered all aspects of government-related or sponsored production and use of anti-COVID countermeasures. It was, as one of our colleagues put
Although as of yet the data has not been peer reviewed, or subjected to the necessary administrative and scientific scrutiny, there has been considerable recent good news regarding the efficacy of two COVID-19 vaccines, being developed by Pfizer and Moderna, respectively.
It is now more likely than ever that within a few months the
What follows is another “guest post” by our blogger-in-training Dean Balaes. This one concerns remote corporate Rule 30(b)(6) depositions and a recent decision addressing them.
**********
In many respects, COVID-19 has created (to use the overused term) a new normal for the legal profession. When California became the first state to issue a stay-at-home order
Back in March, we discussed the Administration’s declaration of tort immunity under the “PREP Act” (42 U.S.C. §§247d-6a, et seq.) for “countermeasures” combating the COVID-19 epidemic. Today, we’re discussing the first cast that we know of to construe this declaration.
That case is Estate of Maglioli v. Andover Subacute Rehabilitation Center I, 2020
To us – and we suspect to most of the exceptional public servants employed by the FDA – Sunday, August 23, 2020 will be a day they would rather forget. On that day the Agency issued an “emergency use authorization” (“EUA”) for what is known as “convalescent plasma” for the treatment of COVID-19,
Some of us belong to the Food and Drug Law Institute. One benefit of FDLI membership is a daily newsletter on FDA-related issues. The other day that newsletter’s top two links were both COVID-19 related – and we found both of them concerning.
The first item the newsletter featured was this story on “The
Not too long ago we commented on the President of the United States promoting the unproven off-label use of a prescription drug, hydroxychloroquine, for treatment of COVID-19, on nationwide TV, in the presence of the Commissioner of the FDA, no less. As we pointed out in the prior post, this drug has serious potential side
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court entered an emergency COVID-19-related order on March 24, 2020 – copy here – that should be of interest to our clients who engage in removal before service (so-called “snap removal”). As we reported at the time, the Third Circuit upheld removal before service in Encompass Insurance Co. v. Stone Mansion
We’ve posted more times than we can count in support of the position that FDA-regulated manufacturers should be able to engage in truthful “promotion” of the off-label uses of their products. Well, on nationwide TV – and in the presence of the Commissioner of the FDA – on March 19, 2010 the President of the