Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Drug & Device News
Tylenol Defendants' Experts Fail Daubert Test
In the case of In re Tylenol (Acetaminophen) Markting, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation, the court overseeing the multi-district litigation claiming Tylenol use can cause liver failure has determined that the plaintiffs' experts may base their opinions on a disputed study, and that three proposed defense experts' testimony, which seeks to counter the validity of the disputed study, is not admissible because it does not meet scientific reliability standards. In re Tylenol (Acetaminophen) Markting, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92334 (E.D. Pa. 7/14/16).
A key issue in the litigation is the question of whether the drug acetaminophen, which is found in Tylenol products, can cause acute liver failure (ALF) at or just above the recommended dose. To establish the causal link between acetaminophen at recommended doses and ALF, the plaintiff proposed to offer the testimony of several experts, all of whom formed their opinions, at least in part, by relying on one published study titled “Acetaminophen-Induced Acute Liver Failure: Results of a United States Multicenter, Prospective Study” (Larson, et al., Hepatology, Vol. 42, No. 6, 2005). This article states, among other things, that at the maximum daily recommended dose of acetaminophen ' 4 grams ' ALF can occur. This conclusion was based on the cases of 19 of the 600+ cases observed by the researchers; these 19 had apparently taken the recommended maximum daily dose (or less) of acetaminophen and no more, yet they developed ALF.
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.