Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Drug Companies and Failure to Warn
[Editor's Note: The author, Tim O'Brien, was recently appointed Lead Counsel by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in MDL No. 1789, In re Fosamax Products Liability Litigation. The opinions expressed herein are those of Mr. O'Brien, and represent some of the arguments the plaintiffs are or will be making in the litigation.]
For more than one year, product liability cases have been pending against Merck's osteoporosis drug, Fosamax'. Despite having one of the highest side effect profiles of any drug in the U.S. prescription database, Fosamax remains on the market, and available by prescription. When a drug remains on the market during litigation but the manufacturer refuses to warn about a known risk, places the information about the risk in an obscure location or provides inadequate information about the severity of the risk, there is a public problem ' for both patients and prescribers alike ' in the form of a health hazard about which most prescribers have insufficient information.
Studies have shown that Fosamax can cause osteonecrosis of the jaw ' literally, rotting of the jaw bone. There is very little debate in the oral surgery community about the link between that drug and osteonecrosis. However, Merck has failed to disclose to prescribers the nature of the risk.
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.
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.
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.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.