Not too long ago we discussed post-remand Pennsylvania Supreme Court filings in the Mallory personal jurisdiction matter. After reviewing both sides’ filings, we observed: “[U]nless the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Mallory were to act contrary to the positions of both sides, the DCC issue will be decided promptly, on this appeal.”
Well, that’s exactly what
Finally, as all the Mallory opinions make clear, jurisdictional litigation in Mallory itself is not over. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Pennsylvania statute has not
Beginning – at least − with the awful decision in Schrecengost v. Coloplast Corp., 425 F. Supp.3d 448, 465 (W.D. Pa. 2019) (discussed here), plaintiffs seeking to overturn the longstanding Pennsylvania (since the 1940s) prohibition against strict liability in prescription medical product liability litigation have been systematically attacking the precedential weight
Sometimes we read an opinion and think to ourselves, we couldn’t have said it better ourselves. That is true of the analysis of failure to report claims in McGee v. Johnson & Johnson, 2023 WL 4765454 (W.D. Pa. Jul. 26, 2023). We’ve been railing against Stengel v. Medtronic, Inc., 704 F.3d 1224 (9th
If Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co., slip op. (June 27, 2023), were a prescription medical product case, it would probably qualify as the worst judicial decision since the Blog was created – due to its potential scope. Since it’s not, Wyeth v. Levine, 555 U.S. 555 (2009), retains that title. But because it does not arise from what we do, Mallory is in certain ways worse. Not only does it give free reign to all litigation tourism in Pennsylvania, but it opens the door to any other state potentially to do the same thing.Continue Reading Litigation Tourism Lives – Mallory Reversed
Starting with our comprehensive post lambasting Schrecengost v. Coloplast Corp., 425 F. Supp.3d 448 (W.D. Pa. 2019), for ignoring 75 years of hitherto unbroken Pennsylvania precedent and allowing a “strict liability” design defect claim against an FDA-regulated prescription medical product, we have both chronicled and opposed the other side’s attempt to infiltrate strict liability into Pennsylvania litigation involving such products (primarily medical devices). That attempt disregards seven Pennsylvania Supreme Court decisions between 1948 (Henderson) and 2014 (Lance), as well as the Pennsylvania Superior Court (an intermediate appellate court in Pennsylvania) (Creazzo), all rejecting application of strict liability principles to prescription medical products. For the gory details, see the prior post.Continue Reading Pennsylvania Law, Federal Rules, and FDA Standards
If we had forgotten that there continue to be abundant U.S. cases of COVID-19, then there was plenty around us to remind us. Public mask usage seems to have increased. We heard how the “tripledemic” of viruses had made hospital beds scarce. We have had colleagues out of commission instead of completing our assignments. The
We’re happy to report on a couple of favorable decisions involving some of the COVID-19-related issues that the Blog has been covering. We have one each on ivermectin injunctions, Shoemaker v. UPMC, ___ A.3d ___, 2022 WL 4372772 (Pa. Super. Sept. 22, 2022), and vaccine mandates, Children’s Health Defense, Inc. v. Rutgers, 2022 WL 4377515 (D.N.J. Sept. 22, 2022).Continue Reading Two Recent COVID-19 Wins
We are delighted to report that we are in love. The object of our affection, named Luca, is eight weeks old and weighs 9.6 pounds. Yes, our new standard poodle puppy, trumpeted repeatedly to patient readers of these pages, is home. The couple-hundred-mile trip to pick him up was packed with excitement and anticipation
This post is from the non-Dechert side of the blog.
After more than a month away at trial, we probably should not have picked a case that hit so close to home, so to speak. Spear v. Atrium Medical Corp., — F. Supp. 3d –, 2022 WL 3357485 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 12, 2022), is
