|
|
|
State Common Law Claims Based Upon Informational Defects |
|
|
|
|
2 | |
|
The Duty to Warn and the Unavoidably Unsafe Product Doctrine |
|
|
1 | (1) |
|
Unavoidably Unsafe Products and Design Defects |
|
|
7 | (1) |
|
Prescription Medical Devices and Biologics as Unavoidably Unsafe Products |
|
|
8 | (4) |
|
Case-by-Case Versus Categorical Application of the Unavoidably Unsafe Product Doctrine |
|
|
12 | |
|
The Learned Intermediary Rule |
|
|
1 | (1) |
|
The Learned Intermediary Rule as the Distinctive Attribute of Litigation Involving Prescription Medical Products |
|
|
1 | (25) |
|
Who Is the Learned Intermediary? |
|
|
26 | (5) |
|
Exceptions to the Learned Intermediary Rule |
|
|
31 | (1) |
|
|
32 | (1) |
|
Mass Immunization Exception |
|
|
33 | (4) |
|
FDA-Mandated Patient Warning Exception |
|
|
37 | (1) |
|
Personal Choice Product Exception |
|
|
38 | (4) |
|
Direct-to-Consumer Marketing Exception |
|
|
42 | (2) |
|
|
44 | (1) |
|
Miscellaneous Unrecognized Exceptions |
|
|
44 | |
|
|
1 | (1) |
|
Criteria for an Adequate Warning |
|
|
1 | (22) |
|
Establishing the Adequacy of a Warning as a Matter of Law |
|
|
23 | |
|
Establishing Causation in a Warning Case |
|
|
1 | (1) |
|
When an Inadequate Warning is Non-Causal |
|
|
1 | (10) |
|
Issues of Fact Concerning Warning Causation |
|
|
11 | (4) |
|
The Presumption That an Inadequate Warning is Causal |
|
|
15 | (4) |
|
Other Causation Issues in Warning Cases |
|
|
19 | |
|
Overpromotion and Negligent Marketing Claims |
|
|
1 | (1) |
|
|
1 | (1) |
|
|
1 | (1) |
|
Illegal Promotion and Marketing Claims |
|
|
1 | (1) |
|
Duty to Warn Claims Involving Direct Patient Warnings |
|
|
1 | (1) |
|
Warning Claims Brought by Prescribing Physicians |
|
|
1 | (1) |
|
Public Policy Considerations Underlying the Unavoidable Unsafe Product Doctrine and the Learned Intermediary Rule |
|
|
1 | (1) |
|
State Common Law Claims Based Upon Non-Informational Defects |
|
|
|
Introduction---Design Defect Claims |
|
|
2 | |
|
Claims Sounding in Strict Liability |
|
|
1 | (1) |
|
Strict Liability---Pleading and Merger of Other Causes of Action |
|
|
2 | (2) |
|
Elements of Strict Liability Claims Brought Under the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A |
|
|
4 | (2) |
|
Requirement of an Unreasonably Dangerous Product |
|
|
6 | (2) |
|
Consumer Expectations Test |
|
|
8 | (2) |
|
|
10 | (3) |
|
Hybridization of Consumer Expectations and Risk-Utility Tests |
|
|
13 | (2) |
|
The Role of the Feasible Safer Alternative Design |
|
|
15 | (5) |
|
Injury Alone Is Not Sufficient to Establish an Unreasonably Dangerous Product |
|
|
20 | (3) |
|
The Unavoidably Unsafe Product Doctrine |
|
|
23 | (1) |
|
Relationship of the Unavoidably Unsafe Product Doctrine to Design Defect Claims |
|
|
23 | (3) |
|
Role of the Risk-Utility Test Under the Unavoidably Unsafe Product Doctrine |
|
|
26 | (2) |
|
Role of Feasible Safer Alternative Design Under the Unavoidably Unsafe Product Doctrine |
|
|
28 | (2) |
|
Requirements of Injury and Proximate Cause |
|
|
30 | |
|
Design Defect Claims Under the Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability |
|
|
1 | (1) |
|
Design Defect Claims Sounding in Negligence |
|
|
1 | (1) |
|
|
1 | (1) |
|
|
1 | (1) |
|
The Restatement Formulation of Manufacturing Defect |
|
|
2 | (1) |
|
Plaintiff's Prima Facie Manufacturing Defect Case |
|
|
3 | (2) |
|
Rebutting Plaintiff's Prima Facie Case of Manufacturing Defect |
|
|
5 | |
|
|
1 | (1) |
|
|
1 | (1) |
|
|
1 | (1) |
|
State Consumer Protection Acts |
|
|
1 | (2) |
|
Restitution/Unjust Enrichment |
|
|
3 | (1) |
|
|
3 | (1) |
|
|
4 | |
|
|
|
What Litigators Need to Know About the FDA |
|
|
2 | |
|
|
2 | (1) |
|
FDA Approval Processes for Prescription Medical Products |
|
|
2 | (2) |
|
|
4 | (6) |
|
|
10 | (5) |
|
|
15 | (1) |
|
Post-Approval FDA Regulation |
|
|
15 | (8) |
|
|
23 | |
|
The Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act as a Source of Substantive Tort Law |
|
|
1 | (2) |
|
No Private Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act Right of Action |
|
|
1 | (7) |
|
Negligence Per Se and Related Doctrines |
|
|
8 | (1) |
|
General Negligence Per Se Principles Applicable to Prescription Medical Product Liability Litigation |
|
|
8 | (5) |
|
The Viability of Negligence Per Se Claims Based Upon Allegations of FDCA Violations |
|
|
13 | (1) |
|
Arguments in Favor of Allowing FDCA-Based Negligence Per Se |
|
|
14 | (3) |
|
Arguments in Favor of Rejecting FDCA-Based Negligence Per Se |
|
|
17 | (7) |
|
Defenses to FDCA-Based Negligence Per Se Claims |
|
|
24 | (1) |
|
Defense on the Merits/No Violation |
|
|
24 | (1) |
|
|
25 | (3) |
|
Imposition of Novel Duties |
|
|
28 | (2) |
|
Allegations Concerning the FDA Approval Process |
|
|
30 | (3) |
|
Violations of Vague or Generic Enactments |
|
|
33 | (3) |
|
Causation Issues in FDCA-Based Negligence Per Se |
|
|
36 | |
|
Federal Preemption as a Defense to Drug and Medical Device Litigation |
|
|
|
|
3 | |
|
General Considerations Concerning Express Preemption |
|
|
3 | (1) |
|
Application of Express Preemption to Common Law Tort Claims |
|
|
4 | (2) |
|
The Statutory Preemption Clause in the Medical Device Amendments of 1976 |
|
|
6 | (1) |
|
``Requirements'' Imposed by FDA Regulation of Medical Devices |
|
|
7 | (1) |
|
|
7 | (1) |
|
FDA Clearance of Substantially Equivalent Devices |
|
|
8 | (1) |
|
FDA Pre-Market Approval of New Devices |
|
|
8 | (1) |
|
Limited FDA Approval of Investigational Devices |
|
|
9 | (1) |
|
The First Wave of Express Preemption in Medical Device Litigation: 1992-1996 |
|
|
9 | (2) |
|
Preemption of Claims Against Devices Exempted from Premarket Approval |
|
|
11 | (3) |
|
Violations of FDA Regulations and Negligence Per Se |
|
|
14 | (2) |
|
Preemption Disfavored in the Ninth Circuit |
|
|
16 | (1) |
|
Medtronic v. Lohr---A Riddle Wrapped in a Mystery Inside an Enigma |
|
|
17 | (2) |
|
Substantial Equivalence vs. Premarket Approval |
|
|
19 | (1) |
|
Violation, or ``Identity of Requirements,'' Claims |
|
|
20 | (1) |
|
Device Specificity of Federal Regulations |
|
|
21 | (1) |
|
Are Common Law Duties ``Requirements'' Under Section 360k(a)? |
|
|
22 | (2) |
|
Adding ``Conflict'' Considerations to Express Preemption |
|
|
24 | (1) |
|
Picking Up the Pieces After Medtronic v. Lohr---What Is Left of Express Preemption? |
|
|
25 | (1) |
|
Express Preemption and Substantially Equivalent Devices |
|
|
25 | (1) |
|
Express Preemption and the Pre-Market Approved Device |
|
|
25 | (1) |
|
View that Express PMA Preemption Is Extensive |
|
|
26 | (4) |
|
View that PMA Preemption Is Minimal |
|
|
30 | (2) |
|
The Minority View Rejecting Express Preemption Altogether |
|
|
32 | (1) |
|
Express Preemption and the Investigational Device |
|
|
32 | (1) |
|
View that IDE Preemption Is Extensive |
|
|
33 | (2) |
|
View that There Is No IDE Preemption |
|
|
35 | (2) |
|
The Special Case of Express Preemption in Tampon Litigation |
|
|
37 | (2) |
|
Express Preemption and Over-the-Counter Drugs |
|
|
39 | (1) |
|
Express Preemption and FDCA-Based Negligence Per Se Claims |
|
|
39 | (1) |
|
Express Preemption and FDA Decisions Not To Regulate |
|
|
40 | (1) |
|
Express Preemption and Informed Consent |
|
|
41 | |
|
|
1 | (1) |
|
|
1 | (1) |
|
|
1 | (1) |
|
Conflict Preemption by Reason of Impossibility |
|
|
1 | (1) |
|
Conflict Preemption by Reason of Obstruction |
|
|
2 | (1) |
|
Implied Preemption in Product Liability Litigation |
|
|
2 | (1) |
|
Effect on Implied Preemption of an Express Preemption Clause |
|
|
2 | (1) |
|
Effect on Implied Preemption of Express Saving Clauses |
|
|
3 | (1) |
|
Implied Conflict Preemption in the FDCA Context |
|
|
4 | (1) |
|
|
4 | (3) |
|
Private FDCA Violation Claims |
|
|
7 | (1) |
|
Prospects for Implied Preemption |
|
|
8 | |
|
Before Litigation Starts: Enhancing Chances for Success |
|
|
|
|
2 | |
|
From the Plaintiff's Perspective |
|
|
1 | (1) |
|
Factual and Legal Investigation |
|
|
1 | (1) |
|
|
1 | (1) |
|
|
1 | (2) |
|
|
3 | |
|
From the Defendant's Perspective |
|
|
1 | (1) |
|
|
1 | (1) |
|
|
1 | (1) |
|
|
2 | (1) |
|
Regulatory and Good Clinical Practice Issues |
|
|
3 | (1) |
|
Review of Internal and External Documents |
|
|
3 | (1) |
|
Freedom of Information Act |
|
|
3 | (1) |
|
|
4 | (1) |
|
|
4 | (2) |
|
|
6 | (1) |
|
Section 10 of the Restatement (Third) of Torts |
|
|
7 | (1) |
|
|
7 | (1) |
|
Duty to Warn Regarding Off-Label Use |
|
|
8 | (1) |
|
|
9 | (1) |
|
|
9 | (1) |
|
Planning for and Executing Recalls |
|
|
10 | (2) |
|
Terminations of Clinical Studies |
|
|
12 | |
|
|
|
|
2 | |
|
Nature of the Certification Determination |
|
|
1 | (1) |
|
The Elements of a Definable and Ascertainable Class Under Rule 23(a) |
|
|
1 | (1) |
|
|
2 | (1) |
|
|
3 | (1) |
|
|
3 | (4) |
|
Adequacy of Representation |
|
|
7 | |
|
Criteria for Determining Whether a Mandatory Class Action Can Be Maintained Under Rule 23(b)(1) or Rule 23(b)(2) |
|
|
1 | (1) |
|
|
1 | (1) |
|
|
1 | (1) |
|
Classes Based on Declaratory or Injunctive Relief Under Rule 23(b)(1)(A) |
|
|
2 | (1) |
|
The ``Limited Fund'' Class Under Rule 23(b)(1)(B) |
|
|
3 | (5) |
|
Medical Monitoring Classes Under Rule 23(b)(2) |
|
|
8 | (1) |
|
Medical Monitoring as Final Injunctive Relief |
|
|
8 | (2) |
|
Money Damages Cannot Predominate in Rule 23(b)(2) Class |
|
|
10 | (2) |
|
The Proposed Class Must Be Cohesive |
|
|
12 | |
|
Rule 23(b)(3) and Requirements of Predominance and Superiority |
|
|
1 | (1) |
|
|
1 | (1) |
|
Problems Inherent in Proposed Nationwide Classes |
|
|
1 | (2) |
|
|
3 | (4) |
|
|
7 | (4) |
|
|
11 | |
|
The Potential for Certification on a Particular Issue |
|
|
1 | (1) |
|
Non-Manufacturer Defendants in Drug and Medical Device Litigation |
|
|
|
|
1 | (1) |
|
|
1 | (1) |
|
General Rule of Strict Liability |
|
|
1 | (1) |
|
Restatement (Third) Position |
|
|
2 | (1) |
|
Statutory Exceptions to Strict Liability |
|
|
3 | |
|
|
1 | (1) |
|
Majority Rule Rejecting Product Liability Claims Against Pharmacists for Prescribed Drugs |
|
|
1 | (11) |
|
Minority Rule Allowing Product Liability Claims Against Pharmacists |
|
|
12 | (2) |
|
Exceptional Circumstances Justifying Imposition of Liability on Pharmacists |
|
|
14 | (1) |
|
Obvious Inadequacies on Face of Prescription/Failure to Label Properly |
|
|
15 | (1) |
|
Voluntary Assumption of Duty to Warn |
|
|
15 | (2) |
|
Specific Knowledge of the Characteristics of a Patient/Customer |
|
|
17 | (1) |
|
Failure to Warn of Adverse Interaction of Two Prescribed Drugs |
|
|
17 | (1) |
|
Dispensing Without Valid Renewal Prescription |
|
|
18 | |
|
Bulk and Component Part Sellers |
|
|
1 | (1) |
|
|
1 | (2) |
|
Federal Law Considerations |
|
|
3 | (2) |
|
Common Law Considerations |
|
|
5 | |
|
|
1 | (1) |
|
|
1 | (1) |
|
Restatement Position and the Sale-Service Distinction |
|
|
1 | (5) |
|
|
6 | (3) |
|
Public Policy Based Rationales for Limiting Hospital Product Liability |
|
|
9 | (2) |
|
|
11 | (1) |
|
|
11 | (5) |
|
|
16 | (1) |
|
|
16 | |
|
Physicians and Similar Health Care Providers |
|
|
1 | (1) |
|
Strict Liability/Breach of Implied Warranty |
|
|
1 | (3) |
|
|
4 | (1) |
|
|
4 | (2) |
|
|
6 | |
|
Contract Research Organizations |
|
|
1 | (1) |
|
|
1 | (2) |
|
|
3 | (1) |
|
|
3 | |
|
|
1 | (1) |
|
|
1 | (4) |
|
|
5 | |
|
Brand Name Manufacturers in Generic Drug Litigation |
|
|
1 | (1) |
|
The Food and Drug Administration |
|
|
1 | (1) |
|
Issues in the Management of the Litigation |
|
|
|
|
2 | |
|
|
1 | (1) |
|
|
1 | (1) |
|
Removal from State Court to Federal Court |
|
|
1 | (1) |
|
|
1 | (1) |
|
General Principles of Removal |
|
|
1 | (2) |
|
Removal in Diversity Cases |
|
|
3 | (7) |
|
Removal in Federal Question Cases |
|
|
10 | (2) |
|
|
12 | |
|
|
1 | (1) |
|
The Commencement of Multidistrict Litigation |
|
|
1 | (4) |
|
Requirement that Actions to be Transferred Have Common Questions of Fact |
|
|
5 | (1) |
|
All Actions Before the Panel Must Have One or More Questions of Fact in Common |
|
|
5 | (1) |
|
The Questions of Fact in Common Must Lend Themselves to Resolution Through Centralization |
|
|
6 | (1) |
|
Commonality Cannot Be Insufficiently Complex |
|
|
7 | (1) |
|
Transfer Must Be for the Convenience of the Parties and Witnesses |
|
|
8 | (3) |
|
Transfer Must Promote the Just and Efficient Conduct of Pretrial Proceedings |
|
|
11 | (2) |
|
Remand of Actions at Suggestion of Transferee Court |
|
|
13 | (1) |
|
Discovery Issues in Multidistrict and Multi-Plaintiff Proceedings |
|
|
14 | (1) |
|
Introduction---The Beginning of a Multidistrict Litigation |
|
|
14 | (2) |
|
|
16 | (1) |
|
Document Preservation and Production |
|
|
16 | (2) |
|
|
18 | (1) |
|
|
18 | (1) |
|
Attorney-Client Privilege |
|
|
19 | (1) |
|
|
20 | (1) |
|
|
21 | (1) |
|
|
21 | (1) |
|
Protecting Trade Secrets and Other Confidential Information |
|
|
22 | (4) |
|
Drafting a Confidentiality Order |
|
|
26 | (1) |
|
Information to Be Protected and Procedures for Designation |
|
|
27 | (1) |
|
|
28 | (1) |
|
Access to Materials Designated as Confidential |
|
|
28 | (2) |
|
Use of Protected Material in Litigation and Filing Under Seal |
|
|
30 | (1) |
|
Challenges to Designation as Confidential |
|
|
31 | (1) |
|
Inadvertent Production of Privileged Materials |
|
|
31 | (1) |
|
Issues Relating to the Termination of Litigation |
|
|
32 | (1) |
|
Breach of a Confidentiality Order |
|
|
32 | |
|
|
1 | (1) |
|
|
|
|
2 | |
|
|
1 | (1) |
|
Discovery and Evaluation of Experts |
|
|
1 | (1) |
|
|
1 | (1) |
|
Federal Rules Relating to Discovery of Experts |
|
|
2 | (2) |
|
State Rules Relating to Discovery of Experts |
|
|
4 | (3) |
|
Discovery of Draft Expert Reports |
|
|
7 | (1) |
|
Discovery of Counsel's Communications with the Expert |
|
|
8 | (2) |
|
Protecting Experts from Unnecessary Disclosure |
|
|
10 | (1) |
|
Communications between Counsel and Experts |
|
|
10 | (1) |
|
Communications among Experts |
|
|
10 | (1) |
|
Withdrawal of the Testifying Expert |
|
|
11 | (1) |
|
|
12 | (1) |
|
Expert Witness Evaluation Tools |
|
|
13 | (1) |
|
|
13 | (1) |
|
Expert Depositions and Prior Testimony |
|
|
13 | (1) |
|
Journals and Publications |
|
|
14 | (1) |
|
|
14 | (1) |
|
Actions by the Office of Research Integrity and the Office for Human Research Protections |
|
|
14 | (2) |
|
|
16 | (1) |
|
Documents Produced in the Litigation |
|
|
16 | (1) |
|
|
16 | |
|
Admissibility of Expert Testimony |
|
|
1 | (1) |
|
|
1 | (2) |
|
Daubert Experience in Drug and Medical Device Litigation |
|
|
3 | (1) |
|
Expert Opinions Based on Epidemiological Studies and Other Human Studies |
|
|
3 | (3) |
|
Expert Opinions Based on Case Reports and Adverse Event Reports |
|
|
6 | (2) |
|
Expert Opinions Based on Animal Studies |
|
|
8 | (2) |
|
Expert Opinions Based on Similar Drugs |
|
|
10 | (1) |
|
Differential Diagnosis as a Methodology for Proving Causation |
|
|
11 | (3) |
|
Expert Opinions Based on Regulatory Actions |
|
|
14 | (1) |
|
State Law Standards for the Admissibility of Expert Testimony |
|
|
15 | |
|
Challenges to Qualifications |
|
|
1 | (1) |
|
Expert Testimony on Regulatory Issues |
|
|
1 | (1) |
|
|
|
Common Evidentiary Issues at Trial |
|
|
2 | |
|
Admissibility of FDA-Related Evidence |
|
|
2 | (1) |
|
Manufacturer-Specific Regulatory History Documents |
|
|
2 | (3) |
|
|
5 | (1) |
|
Adverse Drug and Medical Device Reports |
|
|
6 | (1) |
|
Evidence of Misstatements to the FDA |
|
|
7 | (1) |
|
Non-FDA Evidentiary Exclusion Issues |
|
|
8 | (1) |
|
Subsequent Remedial Measures |
|
|
8 | (3) |
|
|
11 | (2) |
|
Financial Relationship with Physicians |
|
|
13 | (1) |
|
Notes of Telephone Calls by Sales Representatives |
|
|
14 | (1) |
|
Corporate Motive and Intent |
|
|
14 | (1) |
|
|
14 | |
|
|
1 | (1) |
|
How the Courts View Bifurcation |
|
|
1 | (1) |
|
|
2 | (1) |
|
|
2 | (1) |
|
|
3 | (1) |
|
|
4 | (1) |
|
Arguments For and Against Bifurcation |
|
|
4 | (1) |
|
|
4 | (1) |
|
|
4 | (1) |
|
|
5 | (1) |
|
|
6 | (1) |
|
|
6 | (1) |
|
Constitutional Limitations |
|
|
6 | (2) |
|
|
8 | |
|
|
1 | (1) |
|
How the States View Punitives |
|
|
1 | (4) |
|
Constitutional Standards Governing Punitive Damages After State Farm |
|
|
5 | (1) |
|
|
5 | (1) |
|
Evidence of Out of State Conduct Now Highly Suspect |
|
|
5 | (1) |
|
Evidence of Dissimilar Conduct is Barred |
|
|
6 | (1) |
|
The Range of Acceptable Punitive to Compensatory Ratios |
|
|
7 | (1) |
|
The ``Comparable Civil Penalties'' Assessment is Narrowed |
|
|
7 | (1) |
|
|
8 | (1) |
|
Checklist for Punitive Damages Cases |
|
|
8 | (1) |
|
|
8 | (1) |
|
|
9 | (1) |
|
|
9 | (1) |
|
|
10 | (1) |
|
|
11 | (1) |
|
|
12 | (1) |
|
|
12 | (1) |
|
|
12 | (1) |
|
|
13 | |
Index |
|
1 | |