Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Expanded Liability Exposure for Drug and Medical Device Manufacturers: Uninjured Plaintiffs Seek Recovery for 'Artificially Inflated Prices' or Other Relief
When a patient files a lawsuit against a drug or medical device company, it is typically based on product liability allegations that the pharmaceutical product caused physical injury. In recent years, however, patients are asserting violations of state consumer fraud or unfair trade practices acts in addition to product liability claims. The benefit of doing so is clear. These claims, if successful, allow enhanced recovery of treble damages, attorneys' fees, court costs and fees.
What happens, however, when a drug or medical device has not caused the litigant any physical injury? Rather than claiming physical injury, a purchaser sues based on a state's consumer fraud or unfair trade practice act, alleging that the drug or medical device company engaged in fraudulent advertising or promotion, or withheld safety information from the physician and consumer. For example, uninjured plaintiffs seek damages for allegedly having paid an “artificially inflated price” due to the dissemination of misleading information about the product.
This article evaluates several recent cases involving patients, physicians and health care plans that sued pharmaceutical companies under their states' consumer fraud or unfair trade practices acts. These lawsuits involve various innovative theories of recovery. In some instances, courts summarily dismissed these actions, but in others, they permitted discovery to proceed.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?