This post was first published on the Drug and Device Law Blog. We’ve been following Watts v. Medicis Pharmaceutical Corp. ever since the Arizona Court of Appeals issued its bizarre ruling that the learned intermediary doctrine (“LID”), which has been adopted in almost every state, was somehow incompatible with the Uniform Contribution Among Tortfeasors Act … Continue Reading
By Andrew Stillusfen and Tsedey Bogale on Posted in Product Liability
When the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled in Perez v. Wyeth Lab, Inc. that if pharmaceutical manufacturer directly markets to consumers, the learned intermediary doctrine does not apply, it was deemed a “revolutionary,” decision. However, since the ruling, every New Jersey court which has confronted this issue has found that the DTC exception did not … Continue Reading
Over on the Drug & Device Law Blog, the bloggers have put together a survey of how each U.S. state (plus Washington, D.C. and Puerto Rico) has addressed the concept of the heeding presumption, which posits that if the manufacturer of a product had given an alternative "adequate" warning of the potential effects of using the product, then the consumer or learned intermediary of such product would have obeyed the warning. As the survey demonstrates, the states' reaction to this legal theory ranges from full recognition to limited recognition to full rejection.… Continue Reading
Over on the Drug & Device Law blog, Reed Smith partner Jim Beck applauds the recent decision in Tyree v. Boston Scientific Corp., a case filed in the Southern District of West Virginia. Tyree manages to narrow the scope of the 2007 decision in State ex rel. Johnson & Johnson v. Karl, in which the … Continue Reading
In an article entitled, "The Legal Duties Of Clinical Trial Sponsors," published by Law360.com on July 11, 2011, Reed Smith attorney Kevin Lohman addresses the risks involved in human clinical trials and the responsibilities between the clinical study investigator and the manufacturer/sponsor.… Continue Reading
