We see so many cases alleging “illegal” promotion of off-label use that when we find one where the plaintiffs don’t make that sort of allegation, it makes us sit up and take notice. That’s the case with Meharg v. I-Flow Corp., No. 1:08-cv-184-WTL-TAB, slip op. (S.D. Ind. March 1, 2010). It’s a pain pump case – the allegations being that these pumps, which are used after shoulder surgery, (more…)
As we said last week, because it’s a Dechert case, we can’t comment directly on Clark v. Pfizer, Inc., 2010 WL 163583, slip op.(Pa. Super. Jan. 19, 2010). However, we were sufficiently inspired by what’s in the opinion that we thought this would be a good time to put in our two cents worth about one of the theories that theClark plaintiffs pursued: “fraud on the market.”
As defense lawyers, we want to (more…)
As we said last week, because it’s a Dechert case, we can’t comment directly on Clark v. Pfizer, Inc., 2010 WL 163583, slip op.(Pa. Super. Jan. 19, 2010). However, we were sufficiently inspired by what’s in the opinion that we thought this would be a good time to put in our two cents worth about one of the theories that theClark plaintiffs pursued: “fraud on the market.”
As defense lawyers, we want to (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…)
We’ve been doing some research in anticipation of the upcoming ALI meeting at which the Principles of the Law of Aggregate Litigation will be voted on (we hope ALI members interested in class actions and the like will come out, debate the issues, and vote), and in the spirit of cross-fertilization, we thought we’d share it with our readers. The only question we have is the format. We were impressed with reader response we had to the 50-state (more…)
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…)