Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Medical Malpractice Law & StrategyKickerFeaturesTopicsCommercial LawSectionsNewsLJN Newsletters

Drug and Device Injuries

By Janice G. Inman
November 27, 2007

People injured by a drug or medical device often sue not only their medical caregivers and the hospitals where the devices were implanted, but also the drug or device's manufacturers. Smart move, but there may be other avenues for recovery that should be explored. There are many players in the process that brings a drug or device to the market, and it may prove valuable to question whether any of these had a role in causing the claimant's injury and whether they can be reached for recovery.

One such contributor to the process that leads to the marketing of a medical device ' a medical device testing service hired by the manufacturer ' is now fighting a suit against it for alleged fraud and negligence that may have led to the injuries suffered by a woman who underwent surgery for a back problem. Wawrzyneck v. Statprobe Inc., Slip Copy, 2007 WL 3146792 (E.D.Pa., 10/25/07). Although the testing service moved for summary judgment of the suit based on a number of theories, the case has been allowed to go forward. The reasoning of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in denying summary judgment in this case is instructive on the issues of a plaintiff's duty to timely discover which parties may be liable and whether federal preemption should apply.

This premium content is locked for LJN Newsletters subscribers only

  • 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

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year Later Image

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 DOJ's New Parameters for Evaluating Corporate Compliance Programs Image

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.

Use of Deferred Prosecution Agreements In White Collar Investigations Image

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.

Bankruptcy Sales: Finding a Diamond In the Rough Image

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.

Compliance Officers: Recent Regulatory Guidance and Enforcement Actions and Mitigating the Risk of Personal Liability Image

This article explores legal developments over the past year that may impact compliance officer personal liability.