We’ve been posting about this case since 2016 when the district court first dismissed plaintiff’s failure to warn claim as preempted on the grounds that there was clear evidence the FDA would have rejected the warning plaintiff sought.  We celebrated again in 2017 when the Tenth Circuit affirmed that decision.  Since then we’ve been waiting to see what would happen to the claims the Tenth Circuit remanded.  The wait is over.  The remaining claims…

What follows is the second part of our extensive 50-state of cases precluding plaintiffs from proceeding with claims in the absence of admissible expert support.  Part One was last week.  In most states such rulings originated in medical malpractice and workers’ compensation actions, with the relevant principles broadening to encompass product liability and toxic torts.  We were also pleasantly surprised to see how many of the early decisions establishing the expert support requirement for prescription…

Many things look good at first, and then not so much after you look closer. “As seen on TV” is never as good as “as seen in person.” On TV, the Sham WoW is like a shammy, a towel, a sponge. It cleans the house, the car, the boat, the RV. Why even think of throwing away $20 a month on paper towels. In person, on the other hand, it’s an absorbent towel.  You wonder…

We write today about a partial exclusion of a plaintiff expert in the upcoming Taxotere bellwether trial. We have blogged about other aspects of the Taxotere litigation previously. (Here and here, for example.) The case is In re Taxotere (Docetaxel) Prods. Liability Litig., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130339 (E.D. La. Aug. 5, 2019). Taxotere is used to treat chemotherapy. The plaintiff alleged that it caused her to suffer permanent hair loss. Her legal…

Today we bring you a terrific Daubert defense win.  But, we’ll be honest it’s long.  Really long.  Thorough, but long.  So, we’re going to hit the highlights. The case is Davis v. McKesson Corp., 2019 WL 3532179 (D. Ariz. Aug. 2, 2019).  It is a multi-plaintiff case against manufacturers and distributors of gadolinium-based contrast agents (“GBCA”) – used in MRIs.  GBCAs were the subject of an MDL several years involving allegations that when administered to…

We recently blogged about the final chapter (at the district court level, anyway) of the big defense win in the Mirena MDL.  The long-overdue result was entry of summary judgment for the defendant against all claims.  As the blog also chronicled, the key Mirena decision had been earlier – and was already appealed and affirmed – Daubert required exclusion of the plaintiffs’ general causation experts. We’re not revisiting that today.  However, in reading the…

The Lawyers For Civil Justice is conducting a non-scientific poll on social media concerning challenges that litigators face that involve expert evidence.  LCJ’s poll asks the following question: The Federal Rules of Evidence and Daubert require judges to determine whether the testimony offered by an expert witness is sufficiently reliable to be admitted.  To your knowledge, do federal judges consistently perform this gatekeeping responsibility? We thought that blog readers might have something to say about…