Medical device sales representatives are many things. They know their product lines inside and out. They can tell a surgeon exactly where to find a particular screw, rod, or connector in a tray containing dozens of components. They can help ensure the requested hardware is available when needed. What they cannot do is scrub in
Is there a difference between a product manufacturer and a product seller when it comes to product liability? There is in Georgia, and the Georgia Court of Appeals’ recent opinion in Taylor v. Mood Rite, LLC, 2026 Ga. App. LEXIS 240 (Ga. Ct. App. May 15, 2026), underscores that point. An entity that merely
Sometimes we read a decision in favor of the defense that makes it seem like getting the good result was easy. The court summarily disposes of plaintiff’s arguments, adopts the defendant’s reasoning, and might throw in a comment or two about things the plaintiff could have done—but didn’t. But getting those good results is almost never easy. The result is usually a reflection of good lawyering, hard work, and attention to detail (and of course, even with all those things plus favorable law, the client still may not get the result it deserves). Today’s decision, Giddens v. Tift Reg’l Health Sys., 2026 WL 555070 (M.D. Ga. Feb. 27, 2026), reads like it was easy, but we suspect that was because of the work that went into it by defense counsel. So, as we roll into our observance of the Memorial Day holiday and perhaps look forward to some legitimate “easy living” over the weekend, we’ll tip our hats to our friends and colleagues who do the diligent work on behalf of their clients.
Continue Reading Fraudulent Joinder and Some Easy Living in the Middle District of Georgia
We’ve blogged about aspects of the Model Drug Dealer Liability Act before. Over 20 states have enacted versions of the model act in an effort to shift liability for harm caused by illegal drugs to the drug dealers and traffickers who sell and promote illegal drug use. Those are not normally the types of claims of interest to our readers. But, given that we’ve been blogging this week about fraudulent and harmful medical procedures and junk science in mass torts, maybe it’s no surprise that today’s decision deals with an attempt to use a version of the model act as a vehicle for finding liability against a major distributor of legitimate, FDA-approved drugs. McKesson Corp. v. Bolton, 2026 WL 394505 (Ga. App. Feb. 12, 2026).
Continue Reading A Drug Dealer? Seriously?
Yesterday we did our annual best of/worst of CLE, “The Good, the Bad and the Ugly: The Best and Worst Drug/Medical Device and Vaccine Decisions of 2025”. It was good fun for us presenters and hopefully at least mildly educational and entertaining for the audience. (If you missed it, the video replay will be available
There is a special kind of optimism—some might call it magical thinking—that animates the modern failure-to-warn claim against prescription drug manufacturers. It goes something like this: Yes, the FDA-approved label warned about the exact risk that happened to me, but the manufacturer still failed to warn.
Which is a pretty accurate summary of plaintiff’s argument
We’ve been defending drug and device litigation for a long time, and we’ve seen many plaintiffs who experienced real injuries. Those of us at the blog, our colleagues at other defense firms, and our clients are genuinely sympathetic to injuries a plaintiff actually experienced. Many plaintiffs we’ve encountered also endured terrible circumstances earlier in their lives. Some of those can be heartbreaking. Defending cases on the basis that our clients’ products did not cause the injury or that the injury was a known and warned of risk doesn’t mean the defense bar looks askance at plaintiffs and their experiences. But, when we see a case involving a syringe needle purportedly propelled into a plaintiff’s derrière, some of us might exhibit a moment of minor moral weakness and include the above title in a blog post. Mea culpa.
Today’s case, Rudzinskas v. Retractable Techs., Inc., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 191860 (S.D. Ga. Sept. 29, 2025), involves a type of syringe that automatically retracts once the plunger handle is fully depressed. Plaintiff’s husband regularly administered vitamin B-12 shots to her and had been doing so for six or seven years. Plaintiff claimed that, on one of those occasions, the needle from defendant’s syringe “shot into [her] like a slingshot.” Id. at *4. Plaintiff went to the hospital and an ultrasound suggested the needle was embedded in the plaintiff’s buttock. Plaintiff underwent surgery to have the needle removed, but the surgeon was not able to extract it.
Continue Reading A Real Pain in the . . .
If you’re a frequent visitor to the DDL blog, you’ll know all about products liability claims premised on defendants’ alleged failure to report adverse events to the FDA. You’ll also be acutely aware of what we think of such claims—they are flat-out preempted. Much to our dismay, not every court agrees with us. But recently
When we read the word “Georgia”, we hear it in our heads sung in the voice of the great Ray Charles. Actually, we hear the entirety of the opening lyrics to Georgia on My Mind. Is that just us? Ok, well, anyhoo.
We have been reading a lot about Georgia of late because of
The plaintiff in Pachecho v. Johnson & Johnson, 2024 WL 3260883 (M.D. Ga. Jul. 1, 2024), both over-pleaded her causes of action and under-pleaded their factual support (at least as to manufacturing defect). Both errors led the court do a little pruning. And while the cases continues, we hope in its uncluttered state, the