Drug & Device Law

DECEMBER 4, 2023

Abuse of substantive law as a weapon to force settlement occurs so frequently in multidistrict litigation (“MDL”), that we’ve given it a name – “the MDL treatment.” The linchpin of the MDL treatment is that plaintiffs are allowed to take way more liberties with state law than the Erie doctrine allows. 662, 679 (2009).

Production 52

Production Trials Treatment Pharmaceuticals 52

Drug & Device Law

JULY 24, 2023

Yet what the plaintiffs were claiming is that, despite Actos’ undisputed effectiveness as a diabetes treatment, no TPP in the country would have purchased it for that purpose because of the 3/10,000 bladder cancer increased risk. at *6 (plaintiff “has documents and formularies reaching back to only 2009”). PATDC82 I , 943 F.3d

Testimonials 52

Testimonials Pharmacy FDA Doctors 52

Drug & Device Law

MARCH 31, 2023

Supporting scientific articles as First Amendment-supported speech, here in 2009. Ridiculing a blatantly unconstitutional Missouri statute that sought to silence pharmacists critical of ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine as treatments for COVID-19, just yesterday. We have tried to be consistent.

Production 59

Production Pharmacy Doctors Government 59

Drug & Device Law

FEBRUARY 16, 2023

Plaintiffs claimed that “surgical treatments that do not use [bone] screws should be considered alternative designs,” and lost. The problem with this argument is that it really takes issue with the choice of treatment made by [plaintiff’s] physician, not with a specific fault of the [bone] screws sold by [the defendant]. 3d 760 (Tex.

FDA 59

FDA Production FDA Approval Treatment 59

Drug & Device Law

NOVEMBER 7, 2022

The defendant’s drug in Wilkins was the only FDA-approved medication for the treatment of a rare disease ( Fabry Disease ). Back in 2009, the defendant’s “production stalled due to various problems at its manufacturing facility.” 2022 WL 4237528, at *2. Negligence per se likewise failed.

Production 72

Production FDA Approval Packaging Doctors 72

Drug & Device Law

JUNE 6, 2022

Thus a confident learned intermediary’s testimony will defeat causation as a matter of law by stating that, notwithstanding a poor result, the treatment provided was standard of care, and even in hindsight they would not do anything different. 2009), reversed a plaintiff’s verdict for entry of judgment n.o.v. Schering Corp. ,

Testimonials 59

Testimonials Production Pharmaceuticals Treatment 59

Drug & Device Law

MAY 30, 2022

The law presumes that licensed doctors know what they are doing. 1978), where a hypertensive patient was injured after being injected with the defendant’s drug – despite warnings that “expressly directed the doctor administering the drug to refrain from giving it to a patient with hypertension.” at *3 (emphasis original).

Testimonials 59

Testimonials Doctors Production Laboratories 59

Drug & Device Law

DECEMBER 11, 2023

2009 WL 1809990 (S.D. 2009)); here (discussing DeGidio v. 2009 WL 1867676 (N.D. Ohio June 29, 2009)); and here (discussing Joseph v. Ohio 2009)). Defendant] does not deny that it, the doctor, and the hospital are potential joint tortfeasors. . . . July 11, 2011)); here (discussing Stone v. Zimmer, Inc.

Production 102

Production Hospitals Pharmaceuticals Doctors 102

Drug & Device Law

SEPTEMBER 9, 2022

It focused squarely on the doctor. Its concluding paragraph on this issue is instructive: In conclusion, under Kentucky law a plaintiff does not have to present evidence showing the doctor would have changed his mind when the defendant also has not presented evidence that the doctor would not have changed their mind.

Doctors 59

Doctors Testimonials Production Trials 59