We have posted twice before about decisions that reject duty-to-train claims under the rubric of “educational malpractice.” Now Pennsylvania has joined the party. Grady v. Aero-Tech Services, Inc., 2022 WL 683720 (Pa. Super. March 8, 2022), an unpublished, but citable, decision of Pennsylvania’s major intermediate appellate court, applied Pennsylvania’s prior precedents that reject educational
Bostic v. Ethicon, Inc., 2022 WL 952129 (E.D. Pa. March 29, 2022), is a Pennsylvania mesh case raising a host of familiar issues in a motion to dismiss context. The complaint is of the typically overpleaded (14-count) variety. Dickens was not really paid by the word, but plaintiff lawyers seem to think they might
This post is from the non-Reed Smith side of the blog.
A lawyer is a person who writes a 10,000-word document and calls it a “brief.”— Franz Kafka
Our profession often gets criticized for purposeful confusion via legalese, fine print, or just plain old-fashioned verbosity. We cannot deny that the loquacious and the prolific
Today’s case isn’t drug/device, but it’s something our defense-oriented readers should know about. At the tail end of 2021, the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court laid this rotten egg: Commonwealth v. Monsanto Co., ___ A.3d ___, 2021 WL 6139209 (Pa. Cmwlth. Dec. 30, 2021) (“CvM”). The Commonwealth Court is a unique Pennsylvania judicial body,
We report, with excitement and apprehension, that we have tickets to see Hugh Jackman as Harold Hill in The Music Man next month on Broadway. The Drug and Device Law Dowager Countess blushes and giggles at the mention of Jackman, and the outing seemed a worthy one, not without apparent urgency given time’s ravages (the
In law as in real estate, “location, location, location.” Where a case is filed is often outcome-determinative. Jury pools and jurisprudence vary from one jurisdiction to the next. In some states, any complaint written on paper is sufficient; in others, a plaintiff must actually plead facts to avoid dismissal. Similarly, juries in some places routinely
Santa dropped off an early Christmas present. It was not crafted by elves. It was drafted by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court (five of its seven members, anyway), and it is so good that it is a last minute addition to our Ten Best list, which will arrive anon.
In Albert v. Sheeley’s Drug Store, Inc.
Recently, in the context of an IVC filter case, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals certified two questions to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court:
1. Under Pennsylvania law, must a plaintiff bringing a negligent design claim against a prescription medical device manufacturer prove that the device was too harmful to be used by anyone, or may
A little over a month ago, we blogged about the Pennsylvania Superior Court (the Commonwealth’s general intermediate appellate court deciding a test case, Zitney v. Wyeth LLC, 2020 WL 6129173 (Pa. Super. Oct. 19, 2020), that held, as a matter of first impression, that there was no separate duty for a prescription medical product
Procedural considerations often decide cases. Sometimes, weighty legal issues are reached through quirky procedural routes. When it comes to whether state tort law provides medical monitoring as a remedy for people who do not have a present compensable injury, that is a legal (and policy) issue. We have written many times that we think foundational