Drug & Device Law

JANUARY 19, 2024

We’ve been posting about decisions from In re Smith & Nephew Birmingham Hip Resurfacing (BHR) Hip Implant Products Liability Litigation , MDL 2775, since 2018. Its preemption ruling on defendant’s motion to dismiss made the list of ten worst decisions from 2018 , and a subsequent preemption decision reflected more MDL madness.

Testimonials 52

Testimonials FDA Approval Production FDA 52

Drug & Device Law

JULY 24, 2023

See , e.g. , In re Thalomid & Revlimid Antitrust Litigation , 2018 WL 6573118, at *4 (D.N.J. 30, 2018); In re Skelaxin (Metaxalone) Antitrust Litigation , 299 F.R.D. It is not clear that [defendants] will − or even can − avail themselves of a TPP-by-TPP causation defense using doctor-by-doctor testimony. 555, 565 (E.D.

Testimonials 52

Testimonials Pharmacy FDA Doctors 52

Drug & Device Law

MARCH 16, 2023

In two of these cases, our client won summary judgment at the trial court level and an appellate court ended up creating a new cause of action to accommodate the plaintiff’s theory (and lack of helpful testimony from the prescribing physician). There was a similar endorsement in 2018. 2023 WL 2386776, *3. citing Gross v.

FDA Approval 59

FDA Approval FDA Testimonials Production 59

Drug & Device Law

APRIL 18, 2022

2018), as “ The Best Wisconsin Law Decision We’ve Ever Seen, Affirmed.” The surgeon’s testimony supported two grounds for non-causation: lack of reliance, and that a warning would not have changed how the prescription product was used. 2016), “ Probably the Best Wisconsin Law Decision We’ve Ever Seen.” 3d 746 (7th Cir.

Testimonials 59

Testimonials Production FDA Approval FDA 59