Today’s post is from the Zimmer hip prothesis MDL, which appears to be winding down and which we’ve blogged about here. It’s a Rule 702 decision that excluded a treating surgeon who offered unsupported expert opinions about an alleged product defect. In re: Zimmer M/L Taper Hip Prosthesis Prods. Liab. Litig., 2026 WL
We’ve re-read Monsanto Co. v. Durnell, No. 24-1068, 609 U.S. ___, 2026 LX 336645, 2026 WL 1825691 (June 25, 2026) (“Durnell”), a few times over the past few weeks. As Bexis noted in his quick-out-of-the gate (and great) analysis, there is a lot in there to use in our medical device
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
Our PMA Preemption Scorecard now collects 729 opinions, the vast majority of which find preemption (which is why it’s a “scorecard”). Only three of them are from the Land of Enchantment, New Mexico – with two of them being in the same case. The third is Yusnukis v. Nevro Corp., 2026 WL 509227 (D.N.M.
This post is from the non-Reed Smith side of the blog.
They say it’s better to be lucky than good. But in Luckey v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., 2026 WL 836122 (E.D. Ky. Mar. 26, 2026), plaintiff was neither.
This is a straightforward—and satisfying—PMA preemption decision involving a heart valve allegedly marketed to last at
We commented about the King v. DePuy litigation several years ago because this was one of the cases where Pinnacle Hip plaintiffs tried and failed to use a turncoat expert. Well, this long-running (since 2013) – due mostly to execrable MDL management (8 years with no movement) rather than either parties’ fault – lawsuit
Some cases feel brand new. Others feel like a remake you didn’t ask for—but somehow know all the lines to already. This one is firmly in the latter category. For those of us who have been around long enough to remember dial-up internet and the original pedicle screw litigation, this case reads like a throwback.
December 9, 2026? What is that about?
Well, December 9, 2026 is the deadline for each member nation within the European Union to have incorporated the EU’s new Product Liability Directive (“PLD”) into their own national laws. In key markets like Germany, that work is well underway.
Not every EU member state will meet
Not quite three years ago, we co-authored a chapter in a Digital Health guide put out by International Comparative Legal Guides. It bore the pithy title “Predicting Risk and Examining the Intersection of Traditional Principles of Product Liability Laws with Digital Health.” We continue to tinker with the principles of product liability law
We have been mulling over Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369 (2024) and federal preemption.
Yes, we need a life, but let’s put that aside for the moment.
In particular, we’ve been reviewing a rash of complaints where plaintiffs contend that the FDA’s decisions about whether to grant or deny premarket approval