Bipartisan Momentum Builds to Shine Light on Litigation Funders - In October 2023, we discussed the efforts by Senators Joe Manchin (D-WV) and John Kennedy (R-LA) to address the concerns presented by opaque third-party...more
Federal preemption can be a very powerful defense. For example, claims concerning Class III medical devices requiring pre-market approval are generally preempted by the Medical Device Amendments of 1976, 21 U.S.C. § 360c, et...more
Massachusetts federal and state courts issued several important product liability decisions in 2023. Nutter’s Product Liability practice group reviewed these cases and report on their significant holdings as follows ...more
The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (“Second Circuit”) addressed in an August 24th Opinion whether the federal Hazardous Materials Transportation Act (“HMTA”) preempted certain state tort law claims in...more
A recent Second Circuit preemption decision illustrates the importance of a clear-eyed approach to medical device preemption issues. In Glover v. Bausch & Lomb, Inc., 6 F.4th 229 (2d Cir. 2021), the district court...more
Early last year, the In re: Incretin-Based Therapies MDL court held that the plaintiffs’ warnings claims were preempted, excluded plaintiffs’ general causation experts, and granted summary judgment to all defendants on dual...more
We have written before about the Supreme Court’s impossibility preemption decision, Merck Sharpe & Dohme Corp. v. Albrecht, 139 S. Ct. 1668 (2019) (Albrecht) (here, here, here, and here), highlighting some open questions and...more
Massachusetts federal and state courts issued several important product liability decisions in 2021. Nutter’s Product Liability practice group reviewed these cases and report on their significant holdings as follows...more
The Ninth Circuit has confirmed in quadrophonic sound that plaintiffs cannot avoid preemption by relying on vague and speculative allegations to establish a parallel claim. The court affirmed the dismissal of four lawsuits...more
A judge in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida presiding over the In Re: Zantac (Ranitidine) Products Liability Litigation multidistrict litigation, MDL No. 2924, has held that state labeling...more
Earlier this year, the California Court of Appeals in Mize v. Mentor Worldwide LLC, 51 Cal.App.5th 850 (2020), reversed a trial court’s dismissal of failure to warn and other claims against a medical device manufacturer,...more
The Ninth Circuit has confirmed that a lack of summary judgment evidence linking a product to concrete injury may properly halt a would-be class action in its tracks if a defendant preemptively moves for summary judgment...more
Drug warning labels must comply with federal regulations and receive approval from the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) before going to market. Therefore, manufacturers may argue that state law actions related to the...more
Massachusetts state and federal courts issued a number of important product liability decisions in 2019. The Product Liability practice group at Nutter recently reviewed these cases. Highlighted below are some of the key...more
On remand from the U.S. Supreme Court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has in turn remanded the case to the district court to determine whether state law claims are preempted by federal law in the 500+...more
Welcome to the third 2019 issue of Product Lines – our quarterly e-newsletter that focuses on toxic torts and products liability issues.... In This Edition: - Vitamin E Found in Cannabis-Containing Vape Products Linked...more
For some long-awaited events, a little time and distance can add a measure of clarity. Not always – many still are processing the Game of Thrones finale, with no end in sight. But over the past few weeks pharmaceutical...more
The United States Supreme Court finally clarified its 11-year-old “clear evidence” standard for pharmaceutical preemption. In its much-anticipated opinion delivered by Justice Breyer, the Court unanimously reversed the Third...more
The US Supreme Court held on May 20 that a judge, not a jury, must decide the question of whether federal law prohibited drug manufacturers from adding warnings to the drug label that would satisfy state law. To succeed on a...more
Opinion highlights importance of a "clear" record at FDA - On 20 May the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that federal preemption questions arising under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) are for a...more
Following confusion from a 2009 decision, the US Supreme Court on May 20, 2019, decided a significant impossibility preemption case. This new decision will change the dynamics of litigation involving the impossibility...more
The Situation: Name-brand pharmaceutical manufacturers are often sued with claims that they should have strengthened the warnings on their labels, even where (as here) the Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") would not allow...more
Last week, in Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Albrecht, the Supreme Court continued its explication of the balance between state law tort liability that can be imposed on drug makers and the extent to which this liability can be...more
On Monday, the United States Supreme Court found that a judge is better suited than a jury to decide if consumers’ tort claims are preempted by federal regulations. In the case, Merck Sharp & Dome, Corp. v. Albreecht, the...more
On May 20, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its latest opinion on preemption in cases involving prescription medications, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Albrecht, No. 17-290 (U.S. May 20, 2019). ...more