article thumbnail

Dealing with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s Non-Decision on Standards Compliance Evidence

Drug & Device Law

2006) – a precedential holding that the same Pennsylvania rule barring strict liability claims against prescription drugs also applied to prescription medical devices − should not be followed because the plaintiffs in Creazzo were supposedly “pro se.” Medtronic, Inc. , but see Hahn v. Richter , 543 Pa. 558, 673 A.2d Tincher , 104 A.3d

article thumbnail

Federal Officer Removal Fails In California

Drug & Device Law

In Watson , even though it was about FTC regulation, the Court took a shot at the notion that drug and device companies might try to remove their myriad product liability cases based on this statute if interpreted to cover mere regulation. 308 (2005), which comes up not infrequently in drug and device product liability cases.