Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Explanation and analysis of the latest rulings.
Recent rulings with in-depth analysis.
Features
Public Citizen ("PC"), a public interest group, has released a new edition of "Worst Pills, Best Pills," a book analyzing at least 500 prescription drugs, and concluding that at least 200 of them may pose health risks. The group has launched a Web site, <i>www.worstpills.org</i>, which provides information about unsafe drugs, drug pricing and access to the entire contents of the just-published book for a subscription fee.
Highlights of the latest product liability cases from around the country.
Features
Faced with rising litigation costs and unpredictable juries, it is understandable that many product liability litigants — on both sides of the courtroom — eventually think about settlement in lieu of trial. In cases involving catastrophic injury, however, staggering medical expense liens often control the feasibility of reaching an acceptable agreement.
Features
The learned intermediary doctrine is one of the most important doctrines for medical device and pharmaceutical drug defendants in product liability cases because under the doctrine, they are often able to obtain summary judgment on failure to warn claims. (The learned intermediary doctrine has been adopted and recognized in at least 45 states. <i>See Larkin v. Pfizer, Inc.</i>, 153 S.W.3d 758, 767 (Ky. 2005).) The learned intermediary doctrine provides that a manufacturer, designer or distributor of a medical device or pharmaceutical drug does not have a duty to directly warn patients of possible dangers associated with the use of the device or drug. <i>See Presto v. Sandoz Pharm. Corp.</i>, 487 S.E.2d 70 (Ga. Ct. App. 1997). Rather, "'a warning as to possible danger in its use to the prescribing physician is sufficient.'" <i>Id.</i> at 73.
Features
Say you defend a British corporation that is subject to the laws of England and Wales against a U.S. plaintiff who is suing your client for the negligent design and manufacture of a vehicle that resulted in the death of her child. The plaintiff's claim alleges that your client was aware of the risks associated with the design of the vehicle and knew that safer alternative designs were available. Because of cost concerns, however, your client knowingly and intentionally decided to forego the added safety features and implement the cheaper alternative.
Features
Recent rulings of interest to you and your practice.
Features
In <i>Sherwood Partners, Inc., Assignee for the Benefit of Creditors of International Thinklink Corporation v. Lycos, Inc.</i>, 394 F.3d 1198 (9th Cir. 2005), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, by a divided court, recently held that a state statute authorizing an assignee for the benefit of creditors to void a preferential transfer is preempted by the federal Bankruptcy Code.
On April 15, 2005, one of the largest not-for-profit bankruptcy cases ever filed, <i>In re: The National Benevolent Association of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) et al.</i>, (Bankr. W.D. Texas), Case No. 04-50948 (RBK), came to an extraordinary conclusion when the joint plan of reorganization of the Debtors and the Unsecured Creditors' Committee became effective. Under the Plan, all of the Debtors' creditors were paid the full amount of their pre-petition principal and interest, plus a stipulated amount of post-petition interest, together with reimbursement of the full amount of their pre- and post-petition legal fees. After paying their creditors in full on the effective date, the Debtors, a separately constituted arm of the Disciples of Christ Church, retained certain of their assets and will continue their charitable mission. This unusual outcome, in which creditors were paid in full and the Debtors continued certain of their operations, marked the end of a process that began with the Debtors' unsuccessful attempts to negotiate a substantial write-down of their debts outside bankruptcy, was followed by a year-long bankruptcy case in which the Debtors argued that their charitable status and mission should take priority over their bankruptcy law duty to maximize creditor recovery, and was finally resolved when the Debtors were compelled to sell the bulk of their real estate assets in order to fund full payment to creditors.
