Litigation is the Pits – Claim Dismissed for Injuries Caused by Natural Food Substance

January 25, 2019
/
FDA General Litigation Off Label Product Liability
/

“A lady bit down on a pit in an olive …” may sound like the opening line to a bad joke, but the defendant she sued for her injuries with the help of an injury lawyer from https://www.braininjurylawyersorangecounty.com/ appears to have had the last laugh. The plaintiff filed a personal injury claim with the help of a personal injury attorney from www.kwdllp.com/workplace-accidents/ against the defendant in California state court for products liability and pursued theories of strict liability, negligence and breach of an express written…
Continue reading...

Which Gate Do I Enter? Expert Admissibility Standards Far From Uniform

H. Lockwood Miller III

In August, the New Jersey Supreme Court released its opinion in In Re: Accutane Litigation, which as fans of expert-admissibility standards will know essentially moved New Jersey into the column of states that apply a Daubert-based test, rather an a Frye-based test, in evaluating the admissibility of scientific and expert testimony. For anyone who has not yet seen the opinion, a copy can be found here. (Note – it is lengthy, so get a full cup of coffee before you sit…
Continue reading...

Daily Changes Across the Cannabis Legal Landscape

October 1, 2018
/
Cannabis Law Litigation Medical Marijuana
/

Adam R. Dolan

At this point, it should be no surprise to anyone that on a daily basis, the legal landscape of Cannabis law changes and this gives companies like Magnolia Wellness to come up with products involving cannabis extracts which benefits people in a significant way. Zoning issues, licensing and potential medical conditions that can utilize cannabis for treatment are just some of the areas that face consistent legal scrutiny. Below are just a few examples of some of the changes that have occurred in various states…
Continue reading...

Superior Court of Pennsylvania Issues Ruling Addressing Multiple Issues in Pharmaceutical Case

Sean T. Stadelman

In an opinion filed January 8, 2018, Pennsylvania’s intermediate appellate court addressed multiple issues arising after a plaintiff’s verdict in a case from the In Re: Risperdal Litigation. The issues the court addressed are discussed below. Initially, the court, citing Frye, reiterated that in Pennsylvania, a party wishing to introduce novel scientific evidence must demonstrate that the relevant scientific community has reached general acceptance of the principles and methodology employed by the expert witness to testify regarding his conclusions. However, the conclusions themselves…
Continue reading...

Third Defense Verdict in Xarelto Litigation

Aaron M. Schiffrik

On Friday, August 18, 2017, a federal jury in Mississippi rendered a defense verdict in favor of Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc. in a bellwether trial involving the prescription blood thinner Xarelto. The plaintiff alleged Xarelto caused gastrointestinal bleeding resulting in her hospitalization. Federal District Court Judge Eldon E. Fallon presided over the case. Notwithstanding the claims and evidence presented by the plaintiff, a jury returned what is now the third straight defense verdict for Janssen and Bayer in several bellwether trials…
Continue reading...

Pharma Opioid Suits Casting a Wider Net

Karen Saab-Dominguez

Under both federal and state law, it is unlawful to advertise if the advertisement tends to mislead or deceive. States have enacted consumer protection laws to enforce and regulate such deceptive practices. In New York, under General Business Law §349, deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any business, trade, or commerce, or in the furnishing of any service in the state, is declared unlawful. Over the years, the Federal Trade Commission has prosecuted many businesses accused of engaging in false and deceptive advertising.…
Continue reading...

Judicial Call for More Guidance on Punitive Damages Awards

Lisa M. Robinson and H. Lockwood Miller III

Earlier this year, in a bellwether trial in the Actos multidistrict litigation, a Louisiana federal court jury awarded $9 billion in punitive damages to plaintiffs who claimed that the use of the diabetes drug Actos caused bladder cancer. Not surprisingly, post-trial challenges followed. In particular, while the defendants did not challenge the amount of compensatory damages ($1,475,000), they argued that the award of punitive damages had to be reduced in order to comply with previous United States Supreme Court rulings that established limits on punitive…
Continue reading...

Defendants in Mass Tort Pelvic Mesh Lawsuits May Now Succeed With Removal to Federal Court – Non-Diverse Defendant Wins Dismissal

September 11, 2014
/
Class Action Design Defect Drug/Medical Device FDA Litigation Litigation Strategies Medical Device News Pharmaceutical/Medical Device/Biotechnology Product Liability Summary Judgment
/

Lisa M. Robinson

In a significant win for Secant Medical LLC, (Secant), Judge Arnold L. New of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County granted its motion to dismiss mass tort pelvic mesh personal injury claims in a decision dated August 22, 2014. The court held that under the Biomedical Access Assurance Act (BAAA), Secant is not a manufacturer or seller of the pelvic mesh. Secant, a Pennsylvania company, was undoubtedly named to defeat diversity jurisdiction in an effort by plaintiffs to stay in state court in…
Continue reading...