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”)
We keep score here.
We keep the Drug/Vaccine Preemption Scorecard, collecting cases addressing preemption in the context of prescription drugs.
We keep the Device Preemption Scorecard, tracking device preemption cases since Riegel.
We keep the Cross-Jurisdictional Class Action Tolling Scorecard, tracking . . . well, if you understand what those words mean,
Our crystal ball is usually cloudy.
Not so when the U.S. Supreme Court split four-to-four and thus affirmed Warner-Lambert v. Kent, 552 U. S. ____ (2008) , by an equally divided court. We confidently predicted that this issue would continue to percolate in the lower courts until the Supreme Court actually resolved it.
And it’s
A tip of the hat and an extra helping of turkey for Tom Stayton for sending along a copy of a new medical device preemption decision, Link v. Zimmer.
The product: a total knee replacement device called the “natural knee II.” It’s a class III pre-market approved device (naturally). It had to be replaced
Who got it right — the Sixth Circuit in Garcia v. Wyeth-Ayerst Labs, 385 F.3d 961 (6th Cir. 2002), or the Second Circuit in Desiano v. Warner-Lambert & Co., 467 F.3d 85 (2d Cir. 2006)? We almost found out when the Supreme Court granted cert in Desiano (under the name Warner-Lambert v. Kent), but
This, that, and the other thing.
Potpourri.
Odds and sods.
Whatever. This post is about stuff that we learned about recently that relate to our prior posts. Other than that, they have nothing in common with each other.
Together, they add up to enough material for a decent post.
Probably the most unexpected aspect of blogging has been fielding all these calls from reporters. But it does make us wonder sometimes about the quality of the news we hear anywhere. Honestly, would you trust reporters with sources like us?
And one of the most common questions we get asked – well, not exactly, but
This falls into the category of “almost breaking news”:
On Friday, Judge Todd Campbell, who’s handling the Aredia/Zometa MDL, entered an order granting partial summary judgment based on Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Sec. 82.007 as to all failure-to-warn claims. In re Aredia and Zometa Prods. Liab. Litig., 2008 WL 2944910 (M.D. Tenn. July
Ledbetter v. Merck was a big deal when it came down last year. Here’s what we wrote back then.
(Then, as now, Bexis played no role in writing posts about the case, since his firm is involved in the Vioxx defense. Blame Herrmann alone for what follows.)
Judge Randy Wilson, in Harris County, Texas,