We aren’t exactly breaking news by saying experts are extremely important. Even make or break. That’s why everyone – on both sides – want the best. And, in more old news, doctors are expensive. Doctors who serve as experts in complex mass tort litigation can be really expensive. But, based on our opening supposition, we are willing to pay. At least we are willing to pay to hire our own experts, again because we want…

Drug & Device Law

Hauled from the Deep End? New (and One Old) Developments in Pennsylvania Personal Jurisdiction

By Bexis on June 24, 2019

First, we apologize to our readers for not publishing this post earlier. It contains new information that we’ve known about for a couple of weeks, but we felt we had to keep it under wraps temporarily until Bexis filed an amicus curiae brief (last Friday) in one of the cases we discuss. Just as we don’t want to do the other side’s research for them, we likewise don’t want to give them extra time to…

Drug & Device Law

The Other Shoe Drops: Summary Judgment for Bayer in Mirena IIH MDL

By Rachel B. Weil on June 21, 2019

Late last year, we published two posts (here and here) about the gutsy and laudable Daubert decision in the Mirena IIH (idiopathic intracranial hypertension) MDL, in which Judge Paul Engelmayer of the Southern District of New York excluded all seven of the plaintiffs’ general causation experts. At that point, we assumed that it was a foregone conclusion that the plaintiffs’ claims would be dismissed—that no plaintiff could get to a jury without general…

Drug & Device Law

Litigation Funder Indictment in Pelvic Mesh Litigation

By Bexis on June 20, 2019

We’ve blogged a number of times about how litigation funding arrangements collide with various ethical and statutory obligations owed by either the funders or the lawyers they fund. But when the New York Times reported on the questionable funding arrangements that have occurred in Pelvic Mesh litigation in its 2018 article, “How Profiteers Lure Women Into Often-Unneeded Surgery,” we knew that something more was going on. Since, as the article revealed, “[p]eople are…

Drug & Device Law

Court Strikes Down NECC Convictions for Vagueness

By Stephen McConnell on June 19, 2019

For most of you, it has been a long time since you thought much about criminal law. Do you remember the hypothetical about the murder victim who perished on a desert hike and it was difficult to pinpoint the criminal(s) because one person had poisoned the water in the victim’s canteen, one had replaced the water with sand, and another had drilled a hole in the bottom of the canteen? Is it possible that you…

Drug & Device Law

Welcome to the Preemption Family

By Michelle Yeary on June 18, 2019

If preemption had a family tree, the drug and device branch would be heavy. And, as our scorecards and cheat sheets demonstrate, there are obvious sub-branches that sprouted out of major Supreme Court decisions. We have the Wyeth v. Levine, 555 U.S. 555 (2009) pharmaceutical branch; the Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr, 518 U.S. 470 (1996) medical device branch with its subsequent post- Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc., 552 U.S. 312 (2008) off-shoot; the PLIVA, Inc. v.…

Drug & Device Law

Shut the Door on Punitive Damages “Experts”

By Bexis on June 17, 2019

We know of only a couple of cases that have allowed “experts” to testify on the subject of punitive damages. First, in the Actos litigation, the court allowed a so-called “ability to pay” expert opinion to be presented to the jury. In re Actos (Pioglitazone) Products Liability Litigation, 2013 WL 6383104, at *5 (W.D. La. Dec. 4, 2013). What’s that? We can only offer the description found in the opinion: [The expert] provided a report…

Drug & Device Law

Guest Post − How Much Is Too Much Deference To FDA Warning Letters in Consumer Class Actions?

By Bexis on June 14, 2019

Today’s guest post is by Camille L. Fletcher and Joshua Kipnees, both with Patterson Belknap. We actually sought out this guest post, which is rare. We first saw it on one of Patterson’s in-house firm blogs, and it was one of those rare law firm posts that did more than describe a case, offer a couple of obvious observations, and end with an invitation to “contact your [fill in name of firm]…

Drug & Device Law

This Is Why Board Presentations Are Privileged And Protected

By Steven Boranian on June 13, 2019

It is a fairly common situation. A company is facing an issue that someone thinks the board of directors ought to know about, so general counsel retains outside counsel to provide advice. Maybe outside counsel prepares a memo. Maybe he or she appears at a board meeting to give a presentation with others from the company. Later on, someone asks for those materials—the memorandum and the presentation, as recorded in meeting minutes or PowerPoint slides.…

Drug & Device Law

Missouri Federal Court Finds No Specific Jurisdiction over Kansas Knee Implant

By Stephen McConnell on June 12, 2019

Missouri courts keep showing us surprisingly good things on the personal jurisdiction front. In Mitchell v. DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92621 (W.D. Missouri June 3, 2019), the plaintiff twice had a knee replacement implant while she lived in Kansas, then sued in Missouri, claiming that, after she moved there, that is where she suffered injuries and where she sought treatment for her injuries. She alleged negligence, strict liability, breach of warranty, misrepresentation,…

Drug & Device Law

The definitive source for intelligent commentary on the law that matters for drug and device cases

Blog Authors

Pelvic Mesh MDL Slashes Plaintiffs’ Expert’s Fees

Hauled from the Deep End? New (and One Old) Developments in Pennsylvania Personal Jurisdiction

The Other Shoe Drops: Summary Judgment for Bayer in Mirena IIH MDL

Litigation Funder Indictment in Pelvic Mesh Litigation

Court Strikes Down NECC Convictions for Vagueness

Welcome to the Preemption Family

Shut the Door on Punitive Damages “Experts”

Guest Post − How Much Is Too Much Deference To FDA Warning Letters in Consumer Class Actions?

This Is Why Board Presentations Are Privileged And Protected

Missouri Federal Court Finds No Specific Jurisdiction over Kansas Knee Implant

Company

Support

New to the Network