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.
The
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.
“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
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
We have promised ourselves that we will stream this week’s “This Is Us” episode when we finish this blog post. We love this series beyond reason, and we dread its imminent demise, notwithstanding the title’s grammatical transgression. (We generally condition any sort of allegiance on correct use of predicate nominatives.) We are struck, over and
In general, people do not like to have to repeat themselves. It is unavoidable. Sometimes your audience is rightfully (or wrongfully) distracted. Sometimes you aren’t that clear. Sometimes you lose your zoom audio connection and have to start over. Sometimes you don’t notice your daughter’s earbuds are in and that she’s been watching a YouTube
In the movie Thank You for Smoking, lobbyists for the tobacco, alcohol, and firearm industries got together periodically at a DC watering hole to swap stories about the challenges of representing unpopular clients under increasing scrutiny by the federal government. Hilarity ensued, along with some other stuff we do not remember very well. Of course,
This post is from the non-Reed Smith side of the blog.
Shouldn’t you call it a duck? Apparently not in New Jersey. Primarily because New Jersey is still governed by one of our Bottom Ten decisions of 2012 — Cornett v. Johnson & Johnson, 48 A.3d 1041 (N.J. 2012). Today’s ducky decision was handed
One of the intriguing things about cases decided by a jurisdiction’s highest court is that pronouncements by such courts can often have far-reaching implications. Sometimes they pan out, as the application of the First Amendment to the FDA’s ban on off-label promotion seems to be doing following Sorrell v. IMS Health, Inc., 564 U.S.
We have been consistently critical of the MDL system for encouraging judges presiding over such massive aggregations to manipulate the applicable law to create settlement pressure on defendants. We’ve seen that with federal preemption, willingness to create novel state-law causes of action, choice of law, and trial consolidation of multiple plaintiffs.