Almost a year ago (how time flies!), we brought you our first Rico Madness post, regarding the cert petition in Medical Marijuana, Inc. v. Horn, and promised to keep you updated if the Supreme Court took the case. Well, they did and we are.
In our prior post, we noted that we are
A notorious class-action troll took it on the chin in MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC v. Exactech, Inc., 2023 WL 4066635 (E.D.N.Y. June 14, 2023) (“MSPRC”). The troll’s modus operandi is to claim it has assignments of rights from certain fellow-traveling Medicare Advantage Organizations (“MAOs”) and try to turn those into class actions against targeted defendants – usually primary insurers. A search for this plaintiff’s name (MSP) appearing in the same opinion as this assignor (Summacare) pulled up no fewer than 23 hits on Westlaw.
In MSPRC, however, this prolific litigant tried to branch out beyond its usual Medicare Secondary Payor claims into more general third-party payor (“TPP”) litigation. That didn’t turn out well for the troll. Indeed, MSPRC looks like the litigation equivalent of the troll being knocked out with its own club.Continue Reading Medicare Secondary Payor Troll Bounced from MDL
One of the intriguing things about cases decided by a jurisdiction’s highest court is that pronouncements by such courts can often have far-reaching implications. Sometimes they pan out, as the application of the First Amendment to the FDA’s ban on off-label promotion seems to be doing following Sorrell v. IMS Health, Inc., 564 U.S.
Purported class actions on behalf of people who haven’t really suffered any injury are one of the banes of our existence. While not limited to California or courts in the Ninth Circuit, some of the worst (most of which we haven’t covered because they are adverse non-drug/device cases) decisions certainly hail from there.
Recently, however
We’ve used the phrase “one-two punch” before in the blog to describe a pair of legal decisions concerning the same product. Usually, our clients have been on the winning side, but that’s not always true, particularly in cases coming out of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. In November, the Pennsylvania appellate courts, in gynecomastia litigation, dealt defendants two
For several years, Bexis has served as an Advisor to the American Law Institute’s (“ALI”) Third Restatement of Torts, Intentional Torts to Persons project. These things, by their nature, take a long time, but this particular project is drawing to a close. Unfortunately, however, the last part of the last section of the last draft
We continue to scratch our heads over consumer class actions seeking monetary compensation when the customers received exactly what they paid for. We see them from time to time in the pharmaceutical space, where patients claim monetary compensation even though the prescription drugs they used worked like they were supposed to with no adverse reactions.
Say what?
That’s what we thought when we ran across Restatement §920 recently – it was by accident; we were researching something else.
The 900 section of the Second Restatement of Torts is about damages, and §920 has to do with mitigation of damages:
When the defendant’s tortious conduct has caused harm to the plaintiff
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
Last week, in Timbs v. Indiana, ___ S. Ct. ___, 2019 WL 691578 (U.S. Feb. 20, 2019), the Court unanimously held that the Excessive Fines Clause of the U.S. Constitution’s Eighth Amendment applies to the states:
Under the Eighth Amendment, “[e]xcessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual