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
When we hear about another state supreme court deciding a medical monitoring case, we start to salivate.
(That’s not a pretty picture, we know.)
Imagine our anticipation when we kicked back with a copy of Lowe v. Philip Morris USA Inc., No. CC 0111-11895, CA A123025, SC S054378, slip op. (Or. May 1, 2008).
We can’t spell Canada.
We have enough trouble with “USA.”
We don’t speak Canadian.
And we sure as heck don’t do Canadian law.
But just when the United States seems to be coming to its senses about claims for medical monitoring, Canada slipped a gasket. In Peter v. Medtronic, Inc., No. 05-CV-295910CP, slip op. (Ontario
When Bexis got back from hiking the Milford Track and doing all sorts of other ridiculously strenuous things in New Zealand, a friend of his from the Tar Heel State had sent along a new decision by a local appellate court rejecting medical monitoring where the plaintiff had no present injury. Our readers know we
Medical monitoring claims are an odd thing.
We almost never see them in individual lawsuits. Plaintiffs are happy to recover money damages; they don’t need an injunction to obtain medical monitoring relief.
Somehow, in the class action context, those very same plaintiffs need different relief: The class members say they need injunctions to guarantee that
An alert reader read our last post and told us that, just two weeks ago, the Missouri Supreme Court reversed the denial of class certification in a medical monitoring case. Along the way, the court said some nasty stuff about plaintiffs’ ability to recover medical monitoring expenses as an element of damages.
So medical monitoring
Defendants are on a roll in state supreme courts on “medical monitoring” claims.
Before 1997, a few state courts recognized (in varying permutations) medical monitoring claims, which seek to recover the costs of monitoring to detect a disease before the plaintiff has manifested any symptoms. In 1997, however, the United States Supreme Court decided Metro-North
Illinois, the Land of Lincoln, is also quite well known for abusive class action practice, including though by no means limited to certification of “drive by” class actions in certain downstate counties. We’ve also practiced in Cook County, and that venue can be tough on defendants too.
But things have been looking up in Illinois
You’d probably expect that two guys whose idea of recreation includes commenting on drug and medical device product liability litigation would be members of the American Law Institute – and you’d be right. We both are ALI members, and it’s an outstanding organization through which many really smart and really dedicated people to donate huge
We’re always open to guest posts on topics relevant to the defense of prescription medical products. Here’s the first. Sean Wajert is a partner at Jim’s firm, Dechert, and specializes in pharmaceutical defense. It’s about a hot topic – the use and abuse of medical monitoring claims in this type of case.
Introduction
On January