About a month ago, the Nevada Supreme Court took a look at the so-called “heeding presumption” – and rejected it outright. Rivera v. Philip Morris, Inc., ___ P.3d ___, 2009 WL 1563373 (Nev. June 4, 2009). Not only that, the decision was unanimous. Obviously, given the caption, Rivera wasn’t a drug or device case
Since Herrmann argued this case, and Bexis contributed an amicus brief, we’re going to be quite guarded in what we write here. But please remember the existence of Ackermann v. Wyeth, 526 F.3d 203 (5th Cir. 2008), the next time you’re briefing whether a so-called “heeding presumption” applies in cases involving the learned intermediary
As we’ve mentioned previously, we were both involved in the briefing in Ackermann v. Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, 2008 WL 1821379 (5th Cir. Apr. 24, 2008). That case is an excellent example of how defendants can win inadequate warning cases (which is what probably 90% of our drug/device product liability cases are) under the learned
Moments ago, the Fifth Circuit handed down its decision in Ackermann v. Wyeth, No. 06-41774, slip op. (5th Cir. Apr. 24, 2008).
This was an appeal from a grant of summary judgment (based on the learned intermediary doctrine) in an antidepressant-suicide case.
Wyeth sought affirmance on the ground of the learned intermediary doctrine, but also
By the standards of the web, this is old news — the decision came down on January 29.
And, by our recent standards, it’s unimportant news — we’ve been wallowing in Supreme Court cases, and now it’s back to the trial courts.
But we really liked what a federal trial court did in Ebel v.
Under the Vioxx rule, stated previously here here, the blame – or credit – for this post goes entirely to Bexis, as Herrmann this time takes a pass due to client representation.
We’ve learned that Judge Garruto, who’s apparently clearing his docket before a bellwether HRT (hormone replacement therapy) trial and his September 1
We are often mystified that courts rotely apply purportedly “general” product liability concepts to litigation involving prescription medical products without stopping to think whether these concepts make sense where: (1) the product cannot be marketed unless and until a federal agency approves them as safe and effective, and (2) because of its inherent risks, the