In the last month, we’ve seen two more appellate decisions definitively rejecting the idea of some sort of separate cause of action – apart from warning or design defect – for “failure to test,” whatever that might be. In the drug area, as we reported before, the Pennsylvania Superior Court thoroughly killed the concept in Lance v. Wyeth:
[Plaintiff] also maintains that her alleged her causes of action, (more…)
Judge Posner’s opinions are usually right and, even more usually, brilliant. It’s no surprise we’ve blogged about them so often. (For example, here, here, and here.) We could probably count the posts, but we’ll go with the “one, two, and many” formulation and acknowledge that today is the “many-th” time we’ve addressed a fan letter to Chicago. On Friday, we briefly posted on the case of Robinson v. McNeil Consumer Healthcare, No. 09-4011, Slip Op. (more…)
In the last month, we’ve seen two more appellate decisions definitively rejecting the idea of some sort of separate cause of action – apart from warning or design defect – for “failure to test,” whatever that might be. In the drug area, as we reported before, the Pennsylvania Superior Court thoroughly killed the concept in Lance v. Wyeth:
[Plaintiff] also maintains that her alleged her causes of action, (more…)
Remember what Wyeth v. Levine, 129 S. Ct. 1187 (2009), supposedly wasn’t about? We addressed this issue hereshortly after the Levine decision. One thing that Levine wasn’t about (according to the majority, anyway) was a claim that the defendant failed to contraindicate an FDA approved use of the drug in question (Phenergan, in case you’ve forgotten). We observed:
In particular, (more…)
Judge Posner’s opinions are usually right and, even more usually, brilliant. It’s no surprise we’ve blogged about them so often. (For example, here, here, and here.) We could probably count the posts, but we’ll go with the “one, two, and many” formulation and acknowledge that today is the “many-th” time we’ve addressed a fan letter to Chicago. On Friday, we briefly posted on the case of Robinson v. McNeil Consumer Healthcare, No. 09-4011, Slip Op. (more…)
Remember what Wyeth v. Levine, 129 S. Ct. 1187 (2009), supposedly wasn’t about? We addressed this issue hereshortly after the Levine decision. One thing that Levine wasn’t about (according to the majority, anyway) was a claim that the defendant failed to contraindicate an FDA approved use of the drug in question (Phenergan, in case you’ve forgotten). We observed:
In particular, (more…)
In the last month, we’ve seen two more appellate decisions definitively rejecting the idea of some sort of separate cause of action – apart from warning or design defect – for “failure to test,” whatever that might be. In the drug area, as we reported before, the Pennsylvania Superior Court thoroughly killed the concept in Lance v. Wyeth:
[Plaintiff] also maintains that her alleged her causes of action, (more…)
Remember what Wyeth v. Levine, 129 S. Ct. 1187 (2009), supposedly wasn’t about? We addressed this issue hereshortly after the Levine decision. One thing that Levine wasn’t about (according to the majority, anyway) was a claim that the defendant failed to contraindicate an FDA approved use of the drug in question (Phenergan, in case you’ve forgotten). We observed:
In particular, (more…)
Judge Posner’s opinions are usually right and, even more usually, brilliant. It’s no surprise we’ve blogged about them so often. (For example, here, here, and here.) We could probably count the posts, but we’ll go with the “one, two, and many” formulation and acknowledge that today is the “many-th” time we’ve addressed a fan letter to Chicago. On Friday, we briefly posted on the case of Robinson v. McNeil Consumer Healthcare, No. 09-4011, Slip Op. (more…)
Judge Posner’s opinions are usually right and, even more usually, brilliant. It’s no surprise we’ve blogged about them so often. (For example, here, here, and here.) We could probably count the posts, but we’ll go with the “one, two, and many” formulation and acknowledge that today is the “many-th” time we’ve addressed a fan letter to Chicago. On Friday, we briefly posted on the case of Robinson v. McNeil Consumer Healthcare, No. 09-4011, Slip Op. (more…)