The MSP plaintiffs are at it again, and without success this time around. In MSP Recovery Claims Series LLC v. Pfizer Inc., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38647 (D.D.C. Mar. 4, 2025), the group of law firms formed to file lawsuits under the Medicare Secondary Payer Act (hence the “MSP” in the various plaintiffs’ names) sued
Drug & Device Law Blogging Team Blogs
Latest from Drug & Device Law Blogging Team
Gardasil MDL Sets Guardrails For Implied Preemption, And Gets It Right
Taking pot shots at “Big Pharma” is easy. Crack a joke about Big Pharma and you are sure to get a laugh. Amirite?
That is not to say there is never a fair point or two to be made about pharmaceutical development or marketing, or health care and the delivery of same in this country.
Boo, Hiss
As anyone who has read more than a paragraph of what we’ve written knows, this is a forthrightly pro-defense Blog. It is not our practice to criticize the strategy or tactics of defendants or their counsel. It’s not that what defendants do is always right, but to us its almost always understandable.
We were all
The Uniform Judicial Notice of Foreign Law Act — Who Knew?
Certainly not us. We had never heard of the UJNFLA before today and would likely have thought it was a reference to United Joggers of Northern Florida as much as to a Uniform Act promulgated in 1936 which, based on some quick research, was adopted by at least twenty-eight states, including Indiana where it is
Courts Say “No” to Claimed Duties To Warn of Risks Created by Products Made by Others
In the last few months, we have discussed two decisions rejecting claims made by plaintiffs in prescription medical product liability litigation that medical device manufacturers somehow had a duty to warn about claimed risks that occurred when their products were used (by physicians, of course) in conjunction with some other product. In Silverstein v. Coolsculpting
Fifth Circuit Affirms Taxotere Dismissal for Failure to Serve
We blogged a lot about the Taxotere MDL. From Lone Pine orders to denials of motions to amend in remand cases, we reported on some pretty good decisions. The MDL court also dismissed a number of plaintiffs who failed to make timely service on the defendants, which we blogged about here and here. Today’s
Flooding The Zone Does Not Work For Opioid Plaintiffs In Maine
Tubal Ligation Clip Claims Held to be Preempted
Bergdoll v. Coopersurgical, Inc., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38300 (W.D. Mo. March 4, 2025), is a good Class III medical device preemption decision. The device was a Filshie clip, which is used to perform tubal ligations. The claim in Bergdoll is the typical one that the clip migrated and caused adverse symptoms. Bergdoll is also
E.D. Texas Manages FCA Mischief — Again
Sometime last year, one of our esteemed bloggers wrote: “The qui tam provision of the FCA, which permits private plaintiffs – sorry, relators – to steer FCA claims presents marvelous opportunities for mischief.” We couldn’t have said it any better, so we won’t try. Moreover, mischief makes us think of the Marauder’s Map (Harry Potter)
“Radical” but Not “Transparent”
We were promised “radical transparency” by the incoming Secretary of HHS. We recently received something that, while meeting the description of “radical,” doesn’t exactly fit the definition of “transparent.” Since 1971, that is for over 50 years, HHS has had a policy called the “Richardson waiver” (after Elliot Richardson), whereby it expanded