Photo of Eric Alexander

Way back in September 2012, we—in its Blog-specific veiled singular usage—did our first post.  We introduced ourselves with some rare first personal singular statements before proceeding to trash a Louisiana intermediate appellate court’s affirmance of a large verdict under Louisiana’s Medical Assistance Programs Integrity Law.  Among our criticisms was the lack of detail on

Photo of Bexis

We’ve finished reading through the New Jersey Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in Hrymoc v. Ethicon, Inc., ___ A.3d ___, 2023 WL 4714042 (N.J. July 25, 2023) (which should really be captioned “McGinnis” because plaintiff Hrymoc settled, see n.1).  The good – really good – news is that an abusively obtained nuclear ($68 million+) verdict goes bye-bye.  That alone is grounds for celebration.

Continue Reading Perfect Defense §510(k) Compliance Win in New Jersey May Be Pyrrhic

Photo of Bexis

We’ve blogged before about the plaintiffs’ self-defeating “injury” definition in the Taxotere mass tort litigation.  Specifically, plaintiffs have defined their injury as being hair loss that persists more than six months after their cessation of treatment with the defendant’s cancer chemotherapy drug.  But, because this litigation (like most product liability MDLs) only exists because of lawyer solicitation, such solicitation dredges up many plaintiffs who sat on their hands for much longer than the aforesaid six month period.  Having a date certain as to when the injury exists greatly assists any defendant in winning dismissal of these stale claims on statute of limitations grounds.

That’s not just true in the Taxotere MDL

Continue Reading Taxotere Timing Troubles Persistently Plague Plaintiffs

Photo of Stephen McConnell

It is looking very much as if the U.S. Supreme Court will hear a case this upcoming October term that will permit it, at long last, to inter the Chevron doctrine. Under that doctrine, if there is ambiguity about the scope of rule making powers provided to an agency by Congress, courts will defer to

Photo of Bexis

We’re happy to report on a couple of favorable decisions involving some of the COVID-19-related issues that the Blog has been covering.  We have one each on ivermectin injunctions, Shoemaker v. UPMC, ___ A.3d ___, 2022 WL 4372772 (Pa. Super. Sept. 22, 2022), and vaccine mandates, Children’s Health Defense, Inc. v. Rutgers, 2022 WL 4377515 (D.N.J. Sept. 22, 2022).

Continue Reading Two Recent COVID-19 Wins

Photo of Andrew Tauber

A relatively short post about Greisberg v. Boston Scientific Corp., 2022 WL 1261318 (3d Cir. 2022), a short decision that came out the right way, but did so based on a problematic statute that creates a rebuttal presumption that warning labels approved by the FDA are adequate as a matter of state law.


Photo of Michelle Yeary

Today’s case is a straight warnings case.  So, there should be little surprise that if it involves a generic drug preemption shuts it down.  But that does not mean that plaintiffs did not try several avenues of attack to try to find a warning claim that would stick.  None did.

The case is Roncal v.

Photo of Michelle Yeary

“That which we call a rose by any other name would smell just as sweet.” William Shakespeare uses this line in his play Romeo and Juliet to convey that the naming of things is irrelevant. We may not always agree with that (for instance, this blogger is Washington Football Fan – enough said). But when

Photo of Bexis

A little more than six months ago (June 21, 2021), the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey began enforcing its Local Rule 7.1.1, requiring disclosure of third-party litigation funding.  Local Rule 7.1.1 provides:

Within 30 days of filing an initial pleading or transfer of the matter to this district, including the