There’s been a lot of movement amongst the bloggers on this site over the last two years. And now there’s more. Sullivan – that’s me – has moved to Cozen O’Connor. I’ll miss my old firm, Dechert. But I’m excited about my move to Cozen, and I look forward to continuing to give you my thoughts on drug and device law, and sometimes pop culture, from within Cozen’s walls. And, for me, those walls will be in two Cozen offices, one in downtown Manhattan (where I practiced for years when I started my career) and the other in Cherry Hill, New Jersey. Now, Cherry Hill is a great town. I was in that office Friday when I began drafting this post. But today I’m in Manhattan. That’s different. If for no other reason than the views. It’s hard to beat the Freedom Tower as it’s being completed or ships sailing their way down the Hudson River into New York Harbor.
Frankly, if you’re in an office in just about any town other than New York City, “you lose that battle, you lose that battle nine times out of ten.” But that’s not the real advantage of spending much of my time in Cozen’s New York office. The most important benefit is that I now have the ultimate “bona fides” to counter what has been a distinctly Philadelphia voice on this blog. The New York-Philadelphia rivalry has now hit the legal blogosphere. If all else fails, I can just say, “fuhgeddaboudit.”Anyway, here’s my first Cozen post.
So where were we? Oh yes, the learned intermediary doctrine. On Friday, we reported on Calisi v. Abbott Labs., 2013 U.S. Dis. LEXIS 139257 (D. Mass. Sept. 27, 2013), a decision in which the court excluded plaintiff’s warnings expert thereby ending plaintiff’s failure to warn claim. Underlying that decision was the court’s refusal to adopt plaintiff’s argument that Abbott had “assumed a duty” to warn the plaintiff directly rather than warn her doctor because Abbott had earlier communicated directly with plaintiff via a patient video and direct-to-consumer (DTC) advertising.