A case in front of the United States Supreme Court is currently exploring a difficult question. The issue at hand stems from the prior convictions of two medical doctors for narcotics violations when they were found to have been using their medical licenses to deal in opioids and other strong painkillers.
Xiulu Ruan and Shakeel Kahn had been found by lower juries to have been ...
continue reading...
A Supreme Court decision handed down last month and previously addressed on this blog may have huge implications not only for the pharmaceutical and medical device industry, but for product liability laws across most manufacturers’ product lines as well.
If you recall, the Supreme Court overwhelmingly ruled in favor of Bristol-Myers Squibb by 8-1 in June. At question was whether plaintiffs from states other than California could join ...
continue reading...On June 24, 2013 the United States Supreme Court decided the case Mutual Pharmaceutical v. Bartlett, and held that the manufacturer of a generic version of a drug could not be held liable for injuries cause by the defective design of that drug. In 2011, the Court had also held that generic drug manufacturers could not be held liable for defective (incomplete) warning labels accompanying their products. The end result is that manufacturers of generic drugs are almost completely protected ...
continue reading...
In a closely decided ruling issued on June 24, 2013, the Supreme Court voted 5-4 that generic drug makers cannot be sued for adverse reactions to their products. This follows a 2011 ruling in which the Supreme Court decided that makers of generic drugs could not be sued for inadequate warnings as long as they were identical to the warnings on the brand name drugs.
According to the consumer ...
continue reading...
