Luddite.  Technophobe.  Fogey.  Fossil. Geezer.  We’ve been called all of those.  We plead guilty.  We prefer matches to lighters, manual transmission to automatic, fountain pens to uniballs, and wind-up watches to quartz.  We refuse to (that is, cannot) redline documents.  When it comes to computers, we are an easily confused fogey.  We leave the court’s

As much as we like blogging, first and foremost we’re lawyers who represent clients in court.  Our clients tell us how much we can say about litigation we’re involved in, and when they say “not much,” that’s what we do.  If that has the odd effect that we’re sometimes more effusive about other lawyer’s wins

Last Friday, we put up a bare bones post about some expert rulings in HT (bare boned because our involvement in the litigation limits what we can say).  We’ve now learned that the third order has been – not exactly modified but supplemented – and we don’t want any readers not getting fully accurate information. 

We can’t provide any commentary or analysis, because of our firm’s involvement in the litigation.  But we thought our readers would benefit from knowing about three recent opinions excluding certain plaintiff experts in an HT case.

Just the holdings, then:

Opinion #1:  Hines v. Wyeth, 2011 WL 2680814 (S.D.W. Va. July 8, 2011).  Experts: 

We can’t say much about it because of our involvement in the Hormone Therapy litigation, but the Pennsylvania Superior Court has issued its decision in Daniel v. Wyeth Pharms., 2011 Pa. Super. Lexis 27 (Pa. Super. Feb. 7, 2011). The Superior Court reversed the trial court’s decision granting Wyeth’s motion for a new trial

We’re sticking to a plain-vanilla report on a recent Virginia case because of our involvement in the Hormone Therapy litigation, but it is a good decision worth noting. In Torkie-Tork v. Wyeth, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 133179 (E.D. Va. Dec. 15, 2010), the plaintiff nominally asserted inadequate warning and design defect claims. At the

Two new defense wins – links provided. First, today the Eighth Circuit affirms (now reported at 514 F.3d 815) a no-causation verdict in HRT litigation on the basis that the plaintiff herself (not the learned intermediary, so it’s something of an odd situation) was warned but failed to read the warning. Thanks to Mike Scott,


We did those two basic posts on Friday explaining for lay readers the litigation process and the importance of the preemption, Daubert, and learned intermediary defenses. And now we hit you with that title: “HRT JNOV Explained.”

Are we schizophrenic around here, or what?

With all due apologies to new readers who thought

In the Pennsylvania coordinated hormone replacement therapy proceeding, Wyeth is now 8 and 0 in the bellwether cases.

In the first seven: Plaintiffs dismissed four cases voluntarily; the court dismissed one; a jury decided one in favor of Wyeth; and, in the seventh, the court ordered a retrial after an adverse jury verdict.

In number