The unwieldy and sometimes unfair nature of multidistrict litigation has become a recurring theme on the DDL Blog. We have long commented on the “if you build it, they will come” dynamic that leads to hundreds or thousands of cases gathered, filed, and then parked in an MDL—all hoping to do as little
The pelvic mesh case of the week – McBroom v. Ethicon, Inc., 2022 WL 604889 (D. Arizona March 1, 2022) – focuses on the regulatory status of the device. We always knew it was an important issue, and McBroom provides yet another reason why that is so.
As you must know by now, the
It may be tempting to dismiss as boilerplate the “choice of law” discussion that precedes the “standard of review” in a typical brief. But while choice of law may not always be challenging or pivotal, just as often it is both. Today’s case, Peterson v. C.R. Bard Incorporated, 2021 WL 799305 (D. Or. Mar.
Like many of you, we spend a large portion of our professional life litigating cases consolidated in MDLs. MDLs serve a purpose in this “mass tort” world, but they also breed laziness and complacency among plaintiff lawyers who amass “inventories” of clients they’ve never met and about whose claims they know nothing in the hope
We have always thought that regulatory approval or clearance of a drug or medical device should weigh heavily against punitive damages, or even preclude punitive damages altogether. An Arizona statute says exactly that, and now a trial court in Phoenix has applied that statute to dismiss punitive damages in a case involving a medical device
It was over 32 years ago that we graduated from the University of Chicago Law School. The three years in Hyde Park were a punishing experience. There was one class in particular when Prof. Richard Epstein used the Socratic method to pummel our intellect and ego. By the end of the exercise, we were a