The Third Circuit issued an important medical monitoring decision yesterday. Sheridan v. NGK Metals Corp., 2010 WL 2246392 (3d Cir. June 7, 2010). Although this case does not involve a drug or a device, several rulings should prove useful to lawyers who handle drug and device cases. To get the key points of this
Massachusetts Sort Of Recognizes Medical Monitoring
Thanks to a newspaper reporter of all people for this tip – John Ellement of the Boston Globe. The case involved, Donovan v. Philip Morris (go here and click on, first, “slip opinions” and then “Supreme Judicial Court” and finally “opinions”), is a cigarette case, and since both of our firms represent tobacco companies we’re
Maybe Baying At The Moon Helps (Part II)
Yesterday we were pleased to bring you news that the Indiana Supreme Court reversed a case we had previously criticized on precisely the grounds that we had raised.
Perhaps lighting will strike twice. Earlier this year, we criticized a federal district court decision predicting that Delaware would adopt an independent medical monitoring cause of
Medical Monitoring – Another 50-State Survey
We’ve been doing some research in anticipation of the upcoming ALI meeting at which the Principles of the Law of Aggregate Litigation will be voted on (we hope ALI members interested in class actions and the like will come out, debate the issues, and vote), and in the spirit of cross-fertilization, we thought we’d share
Medical Monitoring In The Air – The Guinan Parody
The fascinating, and ultimately frustrating, pair of decisions in Guinan v. A.I. duPont Hospital for Children, ___ F. Supp.2d ___, 2009 WL 307019 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 6, 2009) (“Guinan I“), and Guinan v. A.I. Dupont Hospital for Children, ___ F. Supp.2d ___, 2009 WL 311113 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 6, 2009) (“
Umm … What He Said
There’s a new draft of the ALI’s Principles of Aggregate Litigation in circulation. And, like all the others, you’ll have to buy it from the ALI. Make sure you ask for Council Draft #2, or you’ll be wasting your money on a superseded version.
We’ve provided you with our views – and gripes –
DRI Drug/Device Webinar
Defense lawyers looking for useful CLE may want to consider the upcoming webinar put together by that the DRI’s Product Liability Committee and its Mass Torts & Class Actions Subcommittee.
The topic: “Defending Medical Monitoring Claims — Recent Developments and Best Practices.”
The presenters: Sean Wajert, who’s been a guest blogger here, specifically on
Principles Of Aggravated … Er … Aggregated Litigation
We just got back – well, one of us, anyway – from the latest ALI Members’ Consultative Group (“MCG”) meeting concerning the Principles of the Law of Aggregate Litigation (which we’ll call “PLAL” for short). We’ve always had concerns about the direction of this project, which we haven’t hesitated to inflict on our readers.
Medical Monitoring Limited in Missouri
Last year, in Meyer v. Fluor Corp., 220 S.W.2d 712 (Mo. 2007), the Missouri Supreme Court broke what had otherwise been a clean sweep and recognized medical monitoring claims in certain circumstances. Meyer was a true toxic tort case, involving children allegedly exposed to lead by smelter operators.
Earlier today, Judge Dorr of the
First Thoughts on Sinclair v. Merck
Here’s my thesis: Bexis keeps winning all these cases just so Herrmann is saddled with the responsibility of writing ’em up on the blog. The SOB is a malingerer, pure and simple.
Today’s news is Sinclair v. Merck & Co, No. A-117-06, slip op. (N.J. June 4, 2008). We linked to it moments ago. And