Photo of Bexis

In our recent post describing the best prescription medical product liability litigation decisions of 2023, no fewer than three of the opinions we discussed:  #4 In re Acetaminophen-ASD-ADHD Products Liability Litigation, ___ F. Supp.3d ___, 2023 WL 8711617 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 18, 2023), #5 Onglyza Products Cases, 307 Cal. Rptr.3d 480 (Cal. App. 2023)

Photo of Lisa Baird

We’ve discussed our Drug and Device Law Blog elder care duties before and how it has educated us about health issues faced by the senior population.  Shingles is one health risk that increases as you get older.  It is often described as a painful rash, but “painful rash” doesn’t really capture how bad shingles can

Photo of Bexis

A little while ago, Bexis attended a Lawyers for Civil Justice semi-annual meeting, at which he received that organization’s “Outstanding Contributor Award” (in full disclosure, so did a half dozen other members).  With the soon-to-be-adopted amendments to Fed. R. Evid. 702 having now been approved by the Supreme Court (with only the unlikely step of a congressional veto remaining), the question was what happens next.

These amendments expressly enshrine the expert “gatekeeper” function in the text of Rule 702.  The next step is whether they can be duplicated – or paralleled − in state rules of evidence.  We think that they can, and for a state (like Pennsylvania and a number of others) that still follows the “Frye” standard looking to the “general acceptance” of expert testimony as the touchstone to admissibility, a Rule 702 state-law equivalent might look something like this:Continue Reading 50-State Survey of State Court Decisions Supporting Expert-Related Judicial Gatekeeping

Photo of Michelle Yeary

Just last week we updated our discussion on the 2023 amendments to Rule 702 urging our readers to start using the amendments now before their official implementation in December.  That’s because the Report of the Rules Advisory Committee confirms that the change to Rule 702 is to correct the mistakes of those courts who have

Photo of Bexis

What follows is from the non-Dechert side of the Blog.

In the Zantac MDL, the plaintiffs’ causation problems were plainly visible on the horizon, as we mentioned in our post last year about the Zantac ruling on medical monitoring, In re Zantac (Ranitidine) Products Liability Litigation, 546 F. Supp.3d 1152 (S.D. Fla. 2021).  The Zantac MDL plaintiffs’ claims regarding risk of injury and exposure levels to purported ranitidine-derived nitrosamines (“NDMA” for short) seemed not only trivial, but in many ways bizarre (use of extreme temperatures and other parameters).  They even relied on a retracted study.  That’s why we referred to the “wheels coming off” the plaintiffs’ scientific case in that post.

Now the plaintiffs’ wheels are fully off in Zantac MDL – as we mentioned before, all of their causation experts for the five types of cancer that plaintiffs themselves considered the most plausible have been excluded under F.R. Evid. 702, and summary judgment entered.  In re Zantac (Ranitidine) Products Liability Litigation, ___ F. Supp.3d ___, 2022 WL 17480906 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 6, 2022).  This is a lengthy opinion, 341 pages in slip form.  To keep this post as short as possible, we’ll be summarizing (at best) large parts of it.Continue Reading Zantac Chronicles – Concluding Chapters in the MDL