Having three experts couldn’t save plaintiff’s claims in Robinson v. Davol Inc., 2019 WL 275555 (7th Cir. Jan. 22, 2019). Plaintiffs’ decedent underwent surgery involving a surgical mesh patch and approximately one year later, she developed an abdominal wall abscess that led to various infections that ultimately led to her death. Id. at *2.
A couple of weeks ago, we reported on the terrific Daubert decision in the Mirena IIH MDL in the Southern District of New York, In re Mirena IUS Levonorgestrel-Related Prods. Liab. Litig., 2018 WL 5276431 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 24, 2018), in which the court granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss all seven of the plaintiffs’
This will be the third consecutive week for us to discuss a favorable expert ruling out of the Cook Medical IVC filter litigation in the Southern District of Indiana. By this point, we really do expect some sort of remuneration from the Indiana Chamber of Commerce – maybe tickets for the surprisingly impressive Colts, or
A couple of years ago we penned a paean to Indiana and its cultural and legal triumphs. Now that another chunk of our family has decided to relocate to that happy state, our thoughts returned to Indiana’s many virtues. Sure, there’s the Indy 500, the fabulous covered bridges of Parke County, the Benjamin Harrison home,
It has been said, with maybe a bit of sarcasm, that a company developing a drug hopes that its drug will become successful enough to attract frivolous lawsuits. OK, so maybe only outside lawyers have offered such an aphorism, but bear with us. Imagine that a drug is developed to treat a really common condition,
Today we have a guest post from Reed Smith associate Curtis Waldo. It describes a farce of a Daubert decision where a plaintiff’s expert opinion was allowed to proceed even though the court conceded the evidence was inconclusive. We don’t like that, and neither does Curt. As always our guest posters are responsible for
We have an adorable, pigtailed, toddler grand-niece. We play a game with her that involves placing one building block on the table and asking her how many blocks there are. She answers, “One.” We take that block away and replace it with another. Again, the answer is “one.” Then we place both blocks on the
It is not as if we are delighted to see efforts to resuscitate breast implant litigation, but we won’t groan when the rulings are as good as they are in Laux v. Mentor Worldwide, LLC, No. 2:16-cv-01026-ODW(AGR) (C.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2017). Here, we are talking about Daubert rulings. (The court also issued good
Not even three weeks ago, back on July 28, we discussed the court’s rigorous application of Daubert in excluding expert medical causation opinions in Smith v. Terumo Cardiovascular Sys. Corp., a federal case in the district of Utah. The plaintiff had undergone a heart valve replacement surgery. As is typical, the surgery required use