The other day, we did a quickie post on the state court Sprint Fidelis win for Medtronic here, as soon as we got it. If you’re a subscriber then that’s where you probably learned about the case, since we were first on the Internet with it.

Today, we’re going to look at certain aspects of the decision (now also available at 2009 WL 3417867). Specifically, we want to go over the non-preemption aspects of the decision.
(more…)

In a decision that largely tracks the preemption rulings already reached (and currently on appeal) in the Sprint Fidelis MDL, see In re Medtronic Sprint Fidelis Leads Products Liability Litigation, 592 F. Supp.2d 1147 (D. Minn. 2009), the court in the Minnesota State Court parallel proceedings has likewise dismissed all of the claims before it on preemption grounds. Here’s the slip opinion.

Highlights:
Apparently (more…)

Bexis went gallivanting off to California last week to (among other things) speak to the Product Liability Advisory Council, Inc. (“PLAC”) about the joys of pleading in the post-Twombly/Iqbal era. That meant that he had to update the Twombly/Iqbal research that previously appeared here. Being the lazy pedants that we are, we’re going to piggy back on that today. But at least this (more…)

Thanks to a newspaper reporter of all people for this tip – John Ellement of the Boston Globe. The case involved, Donovan v. Philip Morris (go here and click on, first, “slip opinions” and then “Supreme Judicial Court” and finally “opinions”), is a cigarette case, and since both of our firms represent tobacco companies we’re limited in what we can say. So we’ll concentrate on the elements of the “medical monitoring” cause of action that (more…)

We noted a week ago Saturday, and analyzed on Thursday, the lawsuit that Allergan recently filed challenging the FDA’s regulations that forbid drug manufacturers from providing truthful information about off-label uses of drugs.

We also mentioned that we were disappointed to learn about the Allergan case by reading about it in The New York Times, rather than learning about it from our usual source — our readers, who typically report to (more…)

We’ve decided to get a couple of off-label use-related items off of our to-do-eventually list today. The first we’ve alluded to already. It’s the First Amendment litigation that Allergan recently commenced against the FDA involving the truthful “promotion” of off-label use (specifically use of Botox to treat muscle spasticity). The second is a new law review article on off-label use: R. Dresser & J. Frader, “Off-Label Prescribing: (more…)

Arthur Parker ingested Upsher-Smith Laboratories’ drug amiodarone, developed pulmonary difficulties, and died. His widow brought a product liability action against Upsher Smith.

Lawyers for Upsher-Smith wanted to interview some of Parker’s treating physicians. Plaintiff opposed those ex parte interviews, saying that Nevada law prohibits the interviews and that waivers granted under HIPAA do not preempt Nevada’s physician-patient privilege. (more…)

We’ve done so many posts on removal – for you non-lawyers that means moving cases that were originally filed in state court into federal court – that even we have a hard time keeping track. Most of our posts have reviewed individual cases that, one way or another, we’ve learned about. There are 29 posts (not counting this one) that fall under the label “removal” on our topic list.

So we thought we’d (more…)

We’ve bloggedseveraltimesbefore about the many deficiencies of third-party payor class actions for purely economic – and usually invented – loss. In all but a few courtrooms, such claims have been dismissed. Yesterday, it happened again, in Southern Illinois Laborers’ and Employers Health and Welfare Fund v. Pfizer Inc., Civ. A. No. 08 CV 5175 (KMW) (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2009). We’re too busy right now to put a full post about it, and (more…)