Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
First Circuit Affirms Judgment Against Generic Drug Manufacturer on Plaintiff's Design Defect Claim
In Bartlett v. Mutual Pharmaceutical Company, Inc., 678 F.3d 30 (1st Cir. May 2, 2012), the plaintiff suffered toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN) after taking sulindac, a generic version of the non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug Clinoril'. The plaintiff sued the drug's manufacturer in New Hampshire state court for breach of warranty, negligence and fraud, based on the drug's allegedly defective manufacture and design and the manufacturer's alleged failure to warn of the drug's dangers. After the defendant removed the case to the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire, the federal district court dismissed all but the design defect claim, which proceeded to trial. At trial, the plaintiff argued that sulindac's risks outweighed its benefits, thus making it unreasonably dangerous to consumers, notwithstanding the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)'s having approved the brand-name drug to which sulindac was identical as “safe and effective” and never having withdrawn that approval. The jury found for the plaintiff, awarding over $21 million, and the district court denied the defendant's motion for judgment as a matter of law.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
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
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.
The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.
Each stage of an attorney's career offers opportunities for a curriculum that addresses both the individual's and the firm's need to drive success.
A defendant in a patent infringement suit may, during discovery and prior to a <i>Markman</i> hearing, compel the plaintiff to produce claim charts, claim constructions, and element-by-element infringement analyses.