For over two decades, dating back to Daubert and the ensuing amendments to Rule 702, federal district courts have been charged to act “as gatekeepers to exclude unreliable expert testimony.” Fed. R. Evid. 702 advisory...more
In Kenney v. Watts Regulator Co, No. 20-2995, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4539 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 11, 2021), the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania considered whether to exclude the plaintiff’s...more
In a decision reinforcing the importance of expert testimony in design defect and failure to warn cases, the Eastern District of New York recently dismissed claims against the makers of PAM cooking spray. In Urena v....more
Foley Hoag LLP publishes this quarterly Update primarily concerning developments in product liability and related law from federal and state courts applicable to Massachusetts, but also featuring selected developments for New...more
Applying basic scientific principles to exclude an expert’s unfounded and unsupported opinions, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California has granted summary judgment to the maker of the antipsychotic...more
Harris Beach attorneys Judi Abbott Curry, Victoria A. Graffeo and Marina Plotkin prevailed on plaintiffs’ appeal to the Second Circuit of product liability failure to warn claims against Pioneer Surgical Technology, Inc. and...more
To prepare the best product liability defense for pharmaceuticals and medical devices as well as anticipate and strategically plan for future challenges in the medical and life sciences legal world, it is often helpful to...more
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Holds Failure-to-Warn Claim Against Drug Manufacturer Not Preempted Because There Was No “Clear Evidence” FDA Would Not Have Approved Plaintiffs’ Suggested Warning; Also Holds...more
In This Issue: ..Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (Finally) Enforces Agreement for Individualized Arbitration of Unfair and Deceptive Practices Claims Following United States Supreme Court Decision Reversing...more