We previously posted about the decision in Lofton v. McNeil Consumer & Specialty Pharmaceuticals, 682 F. Supp.2d 662 (N.D. Tex. 2010), here, so this post will be brief.  Plaintiffs sought reconsideration, and recently the court denied the motion.  As usual with reconsideration motions, there wasn’t a whole lot to reconsider, but the plaintiffs made

There’s an old saying, “bad things come in threes.” We don’t know where it comes from, and don’t even think it’s true, although a trio of new opinions in the ObTape MDL is making us reconsider.

Recently, a group of “Phase I Plaintiffs” (and their experts) survived summary judgment and Daubert attacks. These plaintiffs brought

This post is about un-preempted fraud on the FDA claims and how to approach them….

“Heresy!” We hear you shout. “There’s no such thing as an unpreempted fraud on the FDA claim – at least one not brought by DoJ on behalf of the FDA itself. You guys have said so yourselves, in your

Texas, like Michigan, imposes a strong presumption of non-defectiveness on drug labeling approved by the FDA.  As to the Michigan statute (which has been around longer), the Sixth Circuit (where Michigan is located) ruled that an exception to the presumption for fraud on the FDA was preempted by Buckman.  Garcia v. Wyeth-Ayerst Labs., 385

Last week we put In re Mentor Corp. Obtape Transobturator Sling Products Liability Litigation (Doria), 2009 WL 2600517 (M.D. Ga. Aug. 24, 2009) (slip op. here), on the device preemption scorecard. Only a couple of pages long, Doria held that punitive damages were unavailable the New Jersey Product Liability Act (“PLA”)