Long ago, a senior partner told us that clear writing flows from clear thinking. That might be so, but clear thinking and clear writing do not necessarily produce the correct result. For example, you’d have a tough time finding a legal opinion written more clearly than Calchi v. Topco Assocs., LLC, 2024 U.S. Dist.
This is our second go round with Vardouniotis v. Pfizer, Inc., Case No. 152029/2019 (N.Y. Sup.). When we posted about the court’s decision on defendant’s motion to dismiss, we were resigned to shrug our shoulders and accept that “nothing’s perfect.” It’s two years later and we’re still shrugging.
After the court allowed plaintiff’s negligence; gross
It is hard to imagine a less qualified expert witness than the one retained by plaintiff in Krom v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 121618 (N.D.N.Y Jul. 11, 2024). And since truth is often stranger than fiction, we are just going to give it to you straight.
Plaintiff, a 73-year-old, morbidly
Sometimes bench-bar conferences are actually useful. Last week we wrote a post about a district court’s application of the New York statute of limitations to shut down a product liability lawsuit. The key holding was that the statute of limitations began to run as soon as the plaintiff experienced relevant symptoms. There was no need
(The Butler Snow members of the DDL blog had nothing to do with today’s post.)
Intricate issues of New York law have been in the news lately — but that has been about criminal law. By contrast, New York’s application of the statute of limitations in civil tort cases did not surface on CNN, Fox
Generally, there is no medical basis for most claims on homeopathic product labels. But thousands if not millions of people use and find value in homeopathic products, apparently regardless of the fact that the science underpinning the products is shaky at best and possibly non-existent. However, just because one of these pseudo-remedies doesn’t work for
This post is not from the Butler Snow part of the Blog.
The plaintiff in Sheinfeld v. B. Braun Medical, Inc., 2024 WL 635483 (Mag. S.D.N.Y. Feb. 1, 2024), adopted 2024 WL 1075329 (S.D.N.Y. March 12, 2024), was representing himself (“pro se” in legal Latin). Why was that?Continue Reading There’s a Reason Some Plaintiffs Are Pro Se
We’ve pointed out several times recently (and will be pointing out in an ACI presentation today) that cases against over the counter (OTC) drugs are on the uptick. Why? Here’s our theory: there are lots of OTC consumers, hence lots of potential plaintiffs, and there are no pesky learned intermediaries, which means that plaintiffs can
The opening line of Daley v. Mira, Inc., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 193926 (D. Mass. Oct. 30, 2023), is eye-catching: “Nancy Daley has sued two defendants, alleging claims arising from an eye surgery she underwent in 1986.” Wow. In 1986, we were clerking for Judge Norris out in Los Angeles. Ronald Reagan was President.
Bischoff v. Albertsons Co., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS109367 (SDNY June 26, 2023), is another favorable preemption ruling in the current spate of class action strike suits attacking “rapid release” over-the-counter (OTC) products, here acetaminophen, that were marketed in conformity with FDA regulations.
The plaintiff claimed that she purchased a generic form of “rapid release”