Foley Hoag LLP publishes this quarterly Update primarily concerning developments in product liability and related law from federal and state courts applicable to Massachusetts, but also featuring selected developments for New...more
On Feb. 11, 2025, the Missouri Court of Appeals for the Eastern District in Durnell v. Monsanto Co., upheld a jury verdict awarding $1.25 million in compensatory damages to plaintiff John Durnell from defendant Monsanto Co....more
In 2022, over 500 plaintiffs filed a case alleging that Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., a drug manufacturing company, failed to provide adequate warnings that one of their drugs increased the risk of atypical femoral fractures....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
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
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
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
The U.S. Supreme Court issued its potentially most significant preemption decision in several years, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Albright, 587 U.S. ____ (2019), reversing what some had dubbed the worst drug and device...more
On May 20, 2019, the Supreme Court of the United States decided Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Albrecht, No. 17-290, holding that the judge, not the jury, must decide whether state-law failure-to-warn claims are preempted by...more
A judge, and not the jury, is the better-positioned and appropriate decisionmaker to determine whether a failure-to-warn claim is federally preempted, the U.S. Supreme Court held on Monday, May 20, 2019. The Court also...more
On December 18, 2018, the Arizona Supreme Court issued an opinion clarifying manufacturers’ duty to warn consumers under Arizona common law. The Court held that the federal Medical Device Amendments (“MDA”) impliedly...more
Massachusetts state and federal courts issued a number of important product liability decisions in 2017. The Product Liability and Toxic Tort Litigation Group at Nutter recently reviewed these cases. Highlighted below are...more
Massachusetts Federal Court In Multi-District Litigation Holds Under Six States’ Laws That Manufacturer Of Brand-Name Pharmaceutical Is Not Liable For Injuries Caused By Generic Equivalents Whose Manufacturers Were Required...more
The Tenth Circuit recently upheld a Utah district court’s finding that a branded drug manufacturer could not be held liable for failing to warn consumers about alleged birth defect risks when the FDA had previously rejected a...more
FDA’s delay on the final version of generic labelling rules until April 2017 means both branded and generic drug manufacturers face continued uncertainty. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently announced it...more
On Tuesday, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced that it has reopened the comment period for its proposed rule on generic drug labeling. It has also scheduled a day-long public meeting to hear comments and...more