In 1978, an anti-inflammatory drug was approved by the Food and Drug Administration [FDA], and in 2004, the drug was prescribed for plaintiff to treat her shoulder pain. The United States Supreme Court noted: “The results were horrific. Sixty to sixty-five percent of the surface of [plaintiff’s] body deteriorated, was burned off, or turned into an […]
Summary Judgment In Favor Of Product Manufacturer Affirmed.
The warning on a grinder read: “WARNING: To avoid the risk of serious injury, NEVER use this grinder with cup wheels and/or saw blades.” “WARNING: Never use any accessories other than those mentioned below. The use of any accessories other than those mentioned below or attachments not intended for use such as cup wheel, cut-off wheel, […]
No Legal Duty On Part Of Supplier Of Pacemaker.
In a wrongful death action, the family of the decedent brought an action against the supplier of a pacemaker. During the implantation of the pacemaker, at which the pacemaker sales person was present, the decedent’s right atrium and ascending aorta were perforated and she died shortly after surgery. The trial court granted summary judgment. The appellate […]
Ingenius Settlement May Be Anti-Competitive Because Of The “Market Power Derived From The Patent.”
A drug company patented a drug [drug company #1] and a generic drug manufacturer [drug company #2] filed applications for generic drugs modeled after the patented drug. #1 brought an action against #2 claiming patent infringement. After the Food and Drug Administration approved the generic product, #1 and #2 entered into a settlement whereby #2 would […]
Generic Drug Manufacturer Stays In The Case.
Plaintiff brought an action against the manufacturers of a brand-name drug as well as its generic equivalent. The generic drug company demurred, citing PLIVA, Inc. v. Mensing (2011) 131 S.Ct. 2567, [180 L.Ed.2d 580], in which the United States Supreme Court held that claims a generic drug manufacturer should have included stronger warning labels than those […]
Jury Verdict In Favor Of Truck Manufacturer Reversed.
A 15-year-old boy threw a 2.5 pound of concrete rock from a freeway overpass, penetrating the windshield of a truck driven by plaintiff, striking plaintiff on the head and causing great bodily injuries. The boy pled guilty and was sentenced to 12 years in prison. Plaintiff and his wife, and later only his wife, who proceeded […]
No Cause Of Action Against Doctors Or LASIK Manufacturer.
Two plaintiffs received laser eye surgery, LASIK. They brought an action against the machine manufacturer and various doctors because the laser machine used had not been approved by the Food and Drug Administration, even though they suffered no injuries during their surgeries. They assert claims under the Human Subjects Act [Health and Safety Code section […]
Judgment On The Pleadings Against Manufacturer Reversed.
A few months ago, the California Supreme Court limited the liability of manufacturers resulting from asbestos manufactured by third parties in O’Neil v. Crane Co.(2012) 53 Cal.4th 335, [266 P.3d 987; 135 Cal.Rptr.3d 288]. In this case, the Court of Appeal found the exception articulated in O’Neil comes into play, stating the machine here is allegedly […]
Manufacturing Defect Summary Judgment In Favor Of Medical Device Manufacturer Reversed.
Plaintiff had a prosthesis implanted in his femur, and reported pain in his thigh 18 months later. A fatigue fracture was discovered. Defendant manufacturers filed a motion for summary judgment, which included a declaration from an engineer stating the prosthesis was not defective in design or manufacture. Plaintiff’s opposition included the declaration of a metallurgist who […]
The Holder Rule Permits Action Against A Lender To The Same Extent An Action Could Be Brought Against The Seller Of A Mobile Home.
Plaintiffs bought a motor home that was financed with an installment contract. Shortly after the sale, the contract was assigned by the dealership to a bank. Plaintiffs assert the motor home was defective from the start. After months passed without the demanded repairs being made, plaintiffs disclaimed their ownership in the vehicle and sued the dealership. […]