Even though lawyers who bill for their time defending product liability cases might favor those cases sticking around and plaintiffs getting many chances before inevitable dismissals with prejudice, we have been clear that we think plaintiffs should not get to re-plead around preemption once courts have defined the preempted path. There seems to be an
Happy Valentine’s Day. To celebrate, we will discuss a court decision that we love.
Preemption and the Ohio Product Liability Act (OPLA) are two of the best friends a drug/device defense lawyer has. Both show up in Groeschen v. Alcon Laboratories, Inc., 2024 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 2 (Ohio Ct. Comm. Pleas Feb. 2, 2024). As
None of our regular bloggers are solo practitioners. And we’ve all been practicing for quite some time. So, it is fair to stay that we’ve all had ample opportunity to offer writing advice to more junior lawyers. Know your audience. Use active voice. Stop using legalese. Avoid redundancy. And be direct and concise. Which
Growing up down in Georgia, Bexis used the phrase “a whole lotta nuthin’” frequently when encountering things (like the 1970s Underground Atlanta tourist trap) or people (like Lester Maddox, who governed the same way he rode bicycles) that didn’t impress him much. That’s the phrase that came to mind when we read In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. C-8 Personal Injury Litigation, ___ F.4th ___, 2023 WL 8183812 (6th Cir. Nov. 27, 2023). Indeed, the opening sentence of the du Pont opinion was: “Seldom is so ambitious a case filed on so slight a basis.” Id. at 81. And yes, du Pont was an appeal from yet another bizarrely pro-plaintiff MDL decision.
Continue Reading A Whole Lotta Nuthin’
We’ve written about Lone Pine orders many times before. (Here and here, for example.) In brief, a Lone Pine order (so-called because that is the name of the seminal New Jersey case) requires plaintiffs to furnish medical evidence, usually in the form of an expert affidavit, showing that the plaintiff suffered from the
We don’t have much patience for litigation attempting to seek damages for drug addicts who injured or killed themselves through their illegal use of drugs. We’ve discussed several times how such plaintiffs (or their estates) should lose under the in pari delicto doctrine that prevents criminals from recovering damages for the consequences of their own criminal acts. Lots of cases so hold. See, e.g., Albert v. Sheeley’s Drug Store, Inc., 265 A.3d 442, 448 (Pa. 2021); Price v. Perdue Pharma Co., 920 So.2d 479, 486 (Miss. 2006); Orzel v. Scott Drug Co., 537 N.W.2d 208, 213 (Mich. 1995); Patten v. Raddatz, 895 P.2d 633, 637-38 (Mont. 1995); Lastrina v. Bettauer, 289 A.3d 1222, 1234 (Conn. App. 2023); Gentile v. Malenick, 112 N.Y.S.3d 364, 365 (N.Y.A.D. 2019); Kaminer v. Eckerd Corp., 966 So.2d 452, 454 (Fla. App. 2007); Pappas v. Clark, 494 N.W.2d 245, 247 (Iowa App. 1992); Inge v. McClelland, 725 F. Appx. 634, 638 (10th Cir. 2018) (applying New Mexico law); Romero v. United States, 658 F. Appx. 376, 380 (10th Cir. 2016) (applying New Mexico law); Messerli v. AW Distributing, Inc., 2023 WL 4295365, at *5 (D. Kan. June 30, 2023), certif. denied, 2023 WL 6961977 (D. Kan. Oct. 20, 2023); Alston v. Caraco Pharmaceutical, Inc., 670 F. Supp.2d 279, 287 (S.D.N.Y. 2009); Sorrentino v. Barr Laboratories, Inc., 397 F. Supp.2d 418, 422-23 (W.D.N.Y. 2005), aff’d, 218 Fed. Appx. 7 (2d Cir. 2007); Foister v. Purdue Pharma, L.P., 295 F. Supp.2d 693, 705 (E.D. Ky. 2003).
Continue Reading Another Opioid Addict Overdose Case Dismissed, Several Times Over
Today we report on Farson v. Coopersurgical, Inc., 2023 WL 5002818 (N.D. Ohio 2023), a product-liability decision that dismissed all claims against all defendants based on lack of personal jurisdiction, preemption, and Twombly.
Claiming that she was injured when an implantable medical device migrated in her body, the plaintiff brought suit in Ohio
As evidenced by our PMA Preemption Score Card, on which today’s case became the 651st entry, defendant manufacturers of FDA-approved Class III medical devices generally do pretty well with preemption motions. But plaintiffs keep filing PMA medical device complaints, so we’ll keep posting about them.
Which brings us to today’s case, Arnold v.
If we have said it once, we have said it a hundred times: medical product manufacturers are not insurers of their products. Almost as frequently uttered would be that strict liability is not the same thing as absolute liability. In the show position might be that the temporal relationship between a new medical condition and
Twice this year we have reported on trial-court decisions addressing application of offensive non-mutual collateral estoppel—an offensive doctrine that precludes a defendant from relitigating an issue that it lost in earlier litigation against a different plaintiff. One court applied it; the other refused to. Today we report on a Sixth Circuit decision that affirmed, over a spirited dissent, application of the doctrine in a follow-on MDL case.
Our earlier posts catalog the doctrine’s unfair, pernicious results. A quick refresher:
Offensive non-mutual collateral estoppel risks perpetuating an erroneous result by preventing relitigation of issues previously decided against a defendant. If applied, the doctrine can give disproportionate—and potentially dispositive—weight to the decision of a lone judge or jury, no matter how wrong that decision.
The fact that an adverse judgment in one case can cripple a company’s defense in subsequent cases has two adverse consequences apart from the danger of perpetuating error. First, it gives plaintiffs tremendous leverage in settlement negotiations. Second, it induces defendants to spend much more litigating a case than would be warranted by the amount nominally in dispute.
Continue Reading Divided Sixth Circuit Affirms “Unique” Application of Offensive Non-Mutual Collateral Estoppel