Blogging makes you psycho. (Frankly, we didn’t have that far to go even before we started blogging.)
Not only do you want to break stories on the web, you want to be among the first to comment in the print media, too.
The two of us thus teamed up to write a piece for today’s
We know that headline is boring: “Accutane: McCarrell Remanded For New Trial.”
But give us a break.
Levine comes down. We’re duty-bound to blog about it. The press calls for reactions to it. We’re writing about the case in print media. We’re being asked to speak about the case.
And then there’s our real jobs:
Last month, the web was ablaze with speculation about whether Chief Justice Roberts would recuse himself from Wyeth v. Levine, because the Chief owns stock in Pfizer, and Pfizer had announced its intention to acquire Wyeth. Coverage of that issue appeared here, here, and here, among other places.
Here’s what the Chief
So far, we’ve learned of the following upcoming webinars with panels analyzing the implications of Wyeth v. Levine:
On Friday, March 27, at noon Eastern, the Defense Research Institute presents “Supreme Court’s Preemption Decision in Wyeth v. Levine,” featuring Michael Davis and Rebecca Wood (both of Sidley Austin), who wrote an amicus brief in
But we’ve noted before how silly it seems to echo at our little blog things that we’ve previously said in prominent papers.
As you know, we’ve had a few words to say about the Supreme Court’s decision last week in Wyeth v. Levine (here, here, and here).
But we weren’t alone.
Jim Copland argues in Monday’s Washington Times that Congress should adopt an administrative compensation scheme (akin to the vaccine act) that would
As we predicted last week (here and here), the Supreme Court this morning granted petitions for certiorari, vacated the appellate decisions, and remanded for reconsideration in light of Wyeth v. Levine the Third Circuit decisions in Colacicco v. Apotex and Pennsylvania Employees Benefit Trust Fund v. Zeneca.
Here’s a link to today’s Order
There’ll no doubt be a bunch of them, but the law firm client alerts about Wyeth v. Levine are beginning to hit the street (at least the streets where clients and potential clients live). Readers can send them to us. If we like them – if they’ve got some original thought – we’ll link to
It’s been a tough two days for the drug and device industry.
Yesterday, Wyeth v. Levine.
Today, the Medical Device Safety Act of 2009, which is meant to reverse legislatively the Supreme Court’s pro-preemption decision in Riegel v. Medtronic.
Here’s a link to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, which reports on the introduction
A little more than a year ago, back in February 2008, a majority of the Supreme Court stated, in Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc.:
Indeed, one would think that tort law, applied by juries under a negligence or strict-liability standard, is less deserving of preservation. A state statute, or a regulation adopted by a state