Our readers interested in Multi-district Litigation may want to check out recent scholarship from Prof. Brian Fitzpatrick of Vanderbilt Law School.

In Many Minds, Many MDL Judges, 84 J. L. & Contemporary Prob. (2021, Forthcoming), the Professor asserts that the federal MDL statute may concentrate more power in the hands of a single person than

In reviewing the grant of summary judgment to a medical device manufacturer, the Third Circuit has certified two legal issues to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court for possible guidance.  MELISSA EBERT, Appellant v. C.R. BARD, INC.; BARD PERIPHERAL VASCULAR INC., a subsidiary &/or division of Defendant C.R. Bard, Inc., No. 20-2139, 2021 WL 2656690, at *1

Today’s post looks at Rayes v. Novartis Pharms. Corp., No. EDCV21201JGBKKX, 2021 WL 2410677 (C.D. Cal. June 11, 2021), which contains an interesting discussion of an aspect of drug product preemption.  The Supreme Court discussed in Wyeth and later clarified in Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Albrecht, 139 S. Ct. 1668, 1679 (2019),

Just the facts, as Shook is involved in the litigation.  But worth a read is In re Taxotere (Docetaxel) Prod. Liab. Litig., 994 F.3d 704 (5th Cir. 2021).

There the Fifth Circuit upheld the lower court’s decision granting defendant summary judgment in  suit alleging the pharmaceutical company failed to warn that its lifesaving chemotherapy drug

A California judge overseeing the JCCP for diabetes drugs recently made a significant ruling, dismissing more than 500 claims in the coordinated proceeding that alleged the drugs were linked to pancreatic cancer.  In Re Byetta Cases, No. JCCP4574, 2021 WL 2462800 (Cal.Super. Apr. 06, 2021). The Court made both evidentiary rulings regarding plaintiffs’ experts

A federal court in Alabama recently issued an interesting decision on defendant’s motion to exclude plaintiff’s expert evidence in a medical device case.  See Lowery v. Sanofi-Aventis LLC, 2021 WL 872620 (N.D. Ala. Mar. 9, 2021).

Plaintiff advanced claims based on the allegation that he suffered injuries after Defendant’s medical device, Synvisc-One, was injected into

A federal court recently granted defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment in a case that originated in the pelvic mesh MDL pending in the Southern District of West Virginia and was then transferred to plaintiff’s home jurisdiction in Florida.  Swintelski v. American Medical Systems, Inc., NO. 20-60410-CIV-CANNON/Hunt, 2021 WL 687202 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 22, 2021), 

The New Jersey Appellate Division recently released a ruling broadly allowing 510(k) evidence in medical device cases.  Elizabeth Hrymoc, et al. v. Ethicon, et al.,  DOCKET NO. A-5151-17,   467 N.J.Super. 42 (Superior Court N.J., Appellate Division)(March 2, 2021).  Shook played a role in the case as the firm filed an amicus brief for AdvaMed, the

The American Tort Reform Foundation (ATRF) named nine “Judicial Hellholes” in its new annual report intended to shine a light on lawsuit abuse and its effects. See https://www.judicialhellholes.org/reports/2020-2021-executive-summary

ATRF explains that lawsuit abuse harms average, hard-working Americans by clogging our court system with meritless and frivolous cases; dollars spent fighting lawsuits are dollars taken away