This post is from the non-Butler Snow side of the blog.
In Hill v. Medical Device Business Services, Inc., No. 24-5797, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 17835, 2025 WL 1950300 (6th Cir. July 16, 2025), the Sixth Circuit affirmed an expert exclusion/Rule 702/Don’t Say Daubert decision in a case that we last wrote about
We have written a number of posts about pelvic mesh cases over the years. Some of us have also worked on a number of cases. At this point, many cases have gone from MDL to local district court to judgment to appeal. Over time, the tide seems to have turned. That could be because the
If you are one of our readers who fall into the over 50 demographic, we are going to assume that in your head you read the title of today’s post in John Houseman’s voice and you tagged it with “they earned it.” That’s because you were alive in the early 1980s when if you wanted
Today we report on a recent decision dismissing manufacturing-defect, warranty, and failure-to-warn claims arising from an allegedly defective breast implant. Although the decision, D’Addario v. Johnson & Johnson, 2021 WL 1214896 (D.N.J. 2021), does not stray far from the beaten path, it covers ground worth revisiting. The decision is a useful (if cursory) reminder
Today’s case, Knudsen v. Ethicon, Inc., 2021 WL 390825 (M.D. Fla. 2021), involves product-liability claims against a surgical-mesh manufacturer. In a short decision, the court dismissed manufacturing-defect and implied-warranty claims as inadequately pleaded under Michigan law. Although not fully developed, the court’s reasons for dismissing the claims exhibit both insight into manufacturing-defect claims and
This blogger’s work from home experience has included a lot of time with two teenagers. Granted, two relatively smart, funny, and generally OK to be around teenagers. But teenagers, nonetheless. So, I’ve been witness to some true common senseless moments. Like twenty minutes of trying to start the lawnmower before checking if it had gas.
Early on in law school we were taught the virtues of alternate pleading. Different theories against the same defendant, or different theories against different defendants, were perfectly acceptable even if inconsistent.
There is something counterintuitive about that. It seems to lift the veil in front of the law, revealing it to be an opportunistic enterprise
So said the Connecticut state appellate court last week. It’s a pretty simple equation. Like No shoes, no shirt, no service. No pain, no gain. No risk, no reward. In other words, you can’t get one without the other. In Ferrari v. Johnson & Johnson, Inc., — A.3d —, 2019 WL 2167849
This post is from the non-Reed Smith side of the blog.
Search for Medtronic on this blog and you’re going to find preemption cases. Lots of preemption cases. Mostly preemption victories for the defense. An overwhelming body of preemption law has been made by Medtronic. They’ve certainly led the charge. So, if we say today’s
Two weeks ago we told you that an interesting decision was rendered in Sparks v. Oxy-Health, LLC, et al, Case No. 5:13-cv-649-FL, slip op. (E.D.N.C. Sept. 15, 2015), but we could not talk about it because the opinion had been sealed. The parties have informed the court that no redactions were necessary and now the order has been unsealed and we are free to blog about it.
We want to start our post by acknowledging that the underlying circumstances of this case are tragic. It is simply a sad story for the individuals involved. For that reason, we are going to deal with the legal issues in a very straight forward manner. From a legal perspective, plaintiffs did not have the evidence required to sustain a products liability or a consumer fraud case under North Carolina law. It is the import of the judge’s reasoning and the precedential value of the case that we center on and bring to your attention.
The lawsuit was brought by parents on behalf of their deceased son. Their son was 19 years old and autistic. The medical device at issue is a portable mild hyperbaric chamber. Hyperbaric chambers are designed to increase atmospheric pressure. Sparks, slip op. at 6. The one at issue in this case was §510k cleared by the FDA for the treatment of “acute mountain sickness” (condition that affects climbers who climb in excess of 8,000 feet). Id. at 7-8. In certain medical communities, a recognized off-label use for hyperbaric chambers is the treatment of autism. Id. at 8. A prescription is required for this treatment. Id. For several years, plaintiffs took their son to clinics where he would receive hyperbaric chamber treatments. During clinic treatments, plaintiffs’ son was not left alone. Either a family member or a technician monitored and stayed with him throughout the treatment. Id. at 9. In 2011, plaintiffs decide to purchase a hyperbaric chamber from the clinic for in-home use. Id. The chamber had been in use in plaintiffs’ home for four months before their son’s death. On the night of his death, decedent was placed in the chamber by his brother who left the room and went to bed. Id. at 11-12. Decedent’s father was not home that night and his mother fell asleep downstairs. Id. at 12. When she woke, she checked on her son and found the chamber had deflated and that her son had asphyxiated. It was later discovered that the hose that pumps air into the chamber had become disconnected when a book shelf had depressed the disconnect button on the hose valve. Id. at 12-13.Continue Reading Summary Judgment Win Unsealed