A short and sweet report today on Lowe v. Walgreens Boots All., Inc., 2021 WL 4772293 (N.D. Cal. 2021), a recent decision dismissing a putative class action that sought to assert a variety of California state-law claims against the sellers of a generic drug based on the drug’s labeling. The court dismissed three of
We’ll get to the recent Second Circuit decision, Ignacuinos v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharms., Inc., — F.4th —-, 2021 WL 3438355 (2d Cir. 2021), in due course, but first some background.
One of our top ten decisions in 2018 was Gustavsen v. Alcon Labs., Inc., 903 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2018), an important implied-preemption
The Drug and Device Law Rock Climber celebrated her birthday this week by acquiring a companion for the Irascible Rescue Pomeranian (you can read about him here). The new family member is a four-month-old Australian Shepherd mix, pure white with blue eyes. We sense figurative ears perking up at this description, as dog- (and
There are some basic rules for medical product liability litigation, at least as we—and the vast majority of courts—see it. One is that the manufacturer of the medical product that the plaintiff used and allegedly injured her is typically the right defendant. Part of what a potential plaintiff is supposed to do during the statute
It is starting to feel like spring. For those with a poetic or philosophical bent, spring may bring thoughts of renewal and the cyclical rhythms of the planet, among other things. For those interested in more practical things, perhaps the need to do a spring cleaning or plan for some plantings outside. Clutter does have
Another of the recent significant decisions from the In re Zantac MDL, No. 2924, addressed preemption – mostly but not entirely involving defendants who manufactured generic versions of the drug. In re Zantac (Ranitidine) Products Liability Litigation, ___ F. Supp.3d ___, 2020 WL 7864213 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 31, 2020). For those who have not
A little over a month ago, we blogged about the Pennsylvania Superior Court (the Commonwealth’s general intermediate appellate court deciding a test case, Zitney v. Wyeth LLC, 2020 WL 6129173 (Pa. Super. Oct. 19, 2020), that held, as a matter of first impression, that there was no separate duty for a prescription medical product
We have expressed our opinion on “failure to update” claims and have not hidden that we don’t think much of them. Failure to update claims were manufactured by plaintiffs in response to PLIVA, Inc. v. Mensing, 564 U.S. 604 (2011) and Mutual Pharm. Co. v. Bartlett, 570 U.S. 472 (2013) which basically
In a significant, albeit unpublished, decision, an intermediate appellate court in Pennsylvania has ruled that there is no recognized Pennsylvania common-law “duty” for prescription medical product manufacturers to send Dear Healthcare Provider (“DHCP”, a/k/a “Dear Doctor”) letters about label changes. Zitney v. Wyeth LLC, 2020 WL 6129173 (Pa. Super. Oct. 19, 2020).
Zitney arose
Nope, we didn’t bury the lead. Today we are talking about a generic, negligence per se, warnings case that wasn’t decided on preemption grounds. No Mensing. No Buckman. No preemption of any kind. Normally that would make us a little nervous, but no need. It was the learned intermediary doctrine’s day to be