We write a lot about the learned intermediary rule. There are 50 state surveys and summaries of helpful decisions, as well as numerous posts on state-specific decisions. We tracked the development of the rule in jurisdictions like West Virginia and Arizona, and we’ve generally been pleased to report positive developments. At the end of 2024, though, we flagged the Himes case from California as one of the ten worst decisions of the year based on its novel approach to warnings causation. Given our criticisms of Himes, we found it both bizarre and troubling to see the case cited recently by an MDL court in Massachusetts applying Pennsylvania law. Our colleagues in the plaintiffs’ bar are clearly advocating to expand Himes into other jurisdictions, and the defense bar should be ready to counter those efforts.Continue Reading Himes Makes a Sneak Appearance on the East Coast
Summary Judgment
Pursuant to Rule 702, This One Is Or-ah-gone
Tale Of An Economic Loss Class Action
![Photo of Lisa Baird](https://reedsmithblogs.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/userphoto/109-1499442238.thumbnail.jpg)
Lately we have been thinking that perhaps nothing stirs a plaintiffs’ lawyer more than a product liability mass tort except an economic loss class action.
Why? Money, for one. Control, for another.
We regularly complain that plaintiffs’ lawyers save money by doing little-to-nothing to investigate their clients’ personal injury claims in product liability MDLs. …
Sixth Circuit Affirms Exclusion Of General Causation Expert in Onglyza MDL
![Photo of Steven Boranian](https://reedsmithblogs.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/30/userphoto/117.thumbnail.jpg)
The MDL and state court proceedings involving saxagliptin-based diabetes drugs (such as Onglyza and Kombiglyze) strike us as the mass tort that never should have been. These proceedings initially followed a familiar model—a publication identified a signal of a risk (albeit an exceptionally weak signal), and plaintiffs’ lawyers took their cue to collect their inventories…
Eleventh Circuit Affirms Exclusion of Flawed “Differential Diagnosis” in Pelvic Mesh Case
![Photo of Rachel B. Weil](https://reedsmithblogs.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/30/userphoto/742-1590501075.thumbnail.jpg)
We write on the heels of a long weekend layered with dogs and fun. The National Dog Show, which you may have watched on TV yesterday, is held about ten minutes from our house, and a fabulous corded Standard Poodle named Joel, who just happens to be “family” (he is the sire of our gorgeous puppy, Luca) won Best of Opposite Sex two days running (and stayed overnight with us). And two out-of-town handlers we know unexpectedly needed a place to exercise their charges, so we twice got to stand in our back yard while no fewer than seven show dogs, from ten pounds to 150 pounds, swirled around us. We can’t imagine being much happier.
Layers of good mark today’s case, as well. Arevalo v. Mentor Worldwide LLC, et al., 2022 WL 16753646 (11th Cir. Nov. 8, 2022), is a decision on the appeal of a Northern District of Florida decision we liked very much. Arevalo is a pelvic mesh case. The plaintiff alleged that mesh devices implanted to treat her stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse caused her to undergo mesh removal surgery and to suffer a familiar litany of injuries. The plaintiff’s general and specific causation expert was the ubiquitous Dr. Bruce Rosenzweig. Among numerous other motions, the defendant moved to exclude Dr. Rosenzweig’s specific causation opinion as unreliable because Dr. Rosenzweig did not perform an adequate differential diagnosis. The court granted the motion and excluded the specific causation opinions, holding that Dr. Rosenzweig “did not explain how he systematically and scientifically ruled out the other potential causes for the plaintiff’s symptoms. Arevalo, 2022 WL 1673646 at *4. The court then granted summary judgment for the defendant because the plaintiff could not reach the jury without expert specific causation testimony. The plaintiff appealed to the Eleventh Circuit, and today’s decision is the result. Continue Reading Eleventh Circuit Affirms Exclusion of Flawed “Differential Diagnosis” in Pelvic Mesh Case
Fifth Circuit Affirms Summary Judgment for Defendant in IVC Filter Case
![Photo of Rachel B. Weil](https://reedsmithblogs.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/30/userphoto/742-1590501075.thumbnail.jpg)
Earlier this week, we spoke of the impending birth of our soon-to-be standard poodle puppy. We are delighted to report that the puppies are being born as we type this! Eight are expected (e-mail us and we will send you a cool x-ray that shows all eight in utero – count the spines and…
Summary Judgment for Defendants in Hip Implant Case out of the District of Oregon
![Photo of Rachel B. Weil](https://reedsmithblogs.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/30/userphoto/742-1590501075.thumbnail.jpg)
For the first time in two years, we write from the confines of our office in downtown Philadelphia. While we loved the full-time “work from home” regime, we have fondly re-embraced the near-forgotten view from our 30th-floor window, along with our Dancing Barney doll, our RBG action figure, and our solar-powered effigy of…
You Gotta Have Methodology: Expert’s Ipse Dixit Opinion Excluded in C.D. Cal. Hernia Mesh Case
Illinois Appellate Court Affirms Summary Judgment on Failure-to-Warn and “Voluntary Undertaking” Claims in Programmable Pump Case
Good and Bad in IVC Filter Decision out of the Middle District of Tennessee
![Photo of Rachel B. Weil](https://reedsmithblogs.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/30/userphoto/742-1590501075.thumbnail.jpg)
We tend to favor a “glass half full” outlook. We are preternaturally sunshiny during our daily “how was your day” calls from the 86-year-old Drug and Device Law Dowager Countess. (We have not mentioned, for example, that our aging dog has begun sleeping most of the day and barking most of the night, resulting in…