Public policy favors scientific and medical research. So do we. While the theories of various claims asserted against sponsors of medical research—and the reasons for rejecting them—vary greatly, the underlying incentive to promote good research certainly plays a role in protecting those that sponsor and conduct medical research from virtually unlimited liability for alleged
We’re in New York this week for a legal conference that is always a good time. But, truth be told (and we are officers of the court, after all), several years ago we attended a conference sponsored by plaintiff lawyers and it was in every way a delightful affair. The judges did more than show
Back in our AUSA days we prosecuted many drug cases. That was a significant part of our job. The defendants were uniformly unsavory and many were violent. That being said, the mandatory minimum sentences were often crazily high. Sell 50.1 grams of crack and eat ten years. If you had a prior drug conviction (hardly
Today’s case is not a drug or device case, but its holding is helpful to our clients who face state law nuisance claims arising from the acts of third parties.Continue Reading Court Shuts Down Expansion of New York Nuisance Law
When it comes to MDLs that concern a bunch of cases about a drug or device, they typically have a name like “In re [name of product(s)] Product Liability Litigation” or “In re [name of product(s) Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation.” In theory, the first group of MDLs involves, shockingly, product
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