Posts Tagged ‘After’

Bartlett – Not All Pear-Shaped After All

Friday, July 23rd, 2010

Last Friday we had a brief post about the new decision in Bartlett v. Mutual Pharmaceutical Co., 2010 WL 2765358 (D.N.H. July 12, 2010). That was a tickler; we promised you a more fulsome discussion of the opinion later.

Well, later is now, so here goes.

Briefly, the product involved in Bartlett is generic Sulindac, an anti-inflammatory NSAID. The plaintiff was prescribed Clinoral – the branded (more…)

Plaintiffs’ Counsel Kiss Their Pro Hacs Goodbye After Messing With Defense Expert

Wednesday, July 14th, 2010

The title pretty much says it all, but it is rare that you have a state supreme court weighing in on whether revocation of a pro hac is an appropriate sanction for plaintiffs’ lawyer shenanigans, so we call it to your attention. Recently, a North Carolina judge revoked the pro hac vice status of two (non-resident) plaintiffs’ lawyers in a case involving powdered Similac. See Sisk v. Transylvania Comm. Hosp., __ S.E.2d __, 2010 WL 2403438 (N.C. (more…)

Going After Anyone In The Neighborhood (Adelmann-Chester v. Kent)

Monday, June 22nd, 2009

Vitek manufactured and distributed Proplast dental implants, used to treat degeneration of the temporal mandibular joint in the jaw. The FDA recalled those implants in 1991. The whole world sued.

Vitek declared bankruptcy.

Dr. Charles Homsy was an officer, director, and shareholder of Vitek.

Homsy skipped the country.

DuPont manufactured a raw ingredient that Vitek used to manufacture the implants.
(more…)

In Praise Of “Short And Plain” Pleadings After Twombly And Iqbal

Saturday, May 30th, 2009

The other day we – allegedly belatedly – posted about the Supreme Court’s decision in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 2009 WL 1361536 (U.S. May 18, 2009). We say “allegedly” because, whilst Herrmann can blame being out of pocket if he wants, Bexis (although likewise at ALI) doesn’t rely upon that excuse. He believed allalong that the prohibition of “anything goes” pleading in Bell Atlantic Corp. (more…)

The State-Of-The-Art Defense In Drug/Device Cases After Levine

Friday, March 20th, 2009

Wyeth v. Levine
, 2009 WL 529172 (U.S. March 4, 2009), was the Court’s discussion of the “changes being effected” regulation,
id.
at *7-8, which in turn depended on the existence of either “newly acquired information” or “new analyses of previously submitted data.”
Id.
at *7. Factually, there wasn’t much of a record, so the Court held, essentially, that the defendant hadn’t proven the (more…)