Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
In January 2006, a federal court in Texas and a state court in New Jersey issued significant decisions contributing to the developing trend, which was triggered by the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Metro-North Commuter Railroad v. Buckley, 521 U.S. 424 (1997), rejecting medical monitoring as a cause of action. In Bund zur Untersttzung Radargesch'digter e. V., et al., v. Raytheon, Co., No. EP-04-CA-127-PRM, 2006 WL 267335 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 17, 2006), U.S. District Judge Philip R. Martinez predicted that the Texas Supreme Court would not recognize a cause of action for medical monitoring based primarily on that court's prior decision declining to recognize a claim for mental anguish in the absence of a physical injury. One week later, New Jersey Superior Court Judge Carol E. Higbee, in Vitanza v. Wyeth, Inc., Case No. ATL-2093-04-MT (N.J. Super. Ct. Law Div. Jan. 24, 2006), dismissed a medical monitoring claim involving the prescription medication Prempro, ruling that the cause of action for medical monitoring previously recognized by the New Jersey Supreme Court is not available for plaintiffs asserting product liability or consumer fraud claims.
This article first discusses the Buckley decision, which marked the turning point against judicial recognition of medical monitoring causes of action. It then considers the Bund decision, which demonstrates that state laws governing recovery of claims for emotional distress provide strong support for the rejection of medical monitoring under state law. Finally, the article discusses Vitanza and what it portends ' particularly with respect to pharmaceutical products claims ' for the states that have recognized medical monitoring as a cause of action.
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.
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.
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.
There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.
Active reading comprises many daily tasks lawyers engage in, including highlighting, annotating, note taking, comparing and searching texts. It demands more than flipping or turning pages.