tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36762711.post3561009401803532739..comments2023-11-03T06:14:58.449-04:00Comments on Drug and Device Law: Taking StockRachel B. Weilhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02251124525069607080noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36762711.post-69094660198813301812012-01-27T22:03:53.423-05:002012-01-27T22:03:53.423-05:00Many people have experienced an injury due to some...Many people have experienced an injury due to someone being reckless or reckless. When this happens, they have a tendency to data file a litigation.tampa personal injury lawyerhttp://www.rivaslawgroup.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36762711.post-8172463495000459552009-07-29T11:37:51.022-04:002009-07-29T11:37:51.022-04:00To Justinian:
Ultimately, yes, one goal is to red...To Justinian:<br /><br />Ultimately, yes, one goal is to reduce the overall litigation load. We wish it were that simple. Nowadays, every FDA warning letter, however innocuous, might trigger a mass tort. Most mass tort plaintiffs don't have any injury worth suing over.<br /><br />If Bendectin weren't a litigen and were that easy to make, somebody would be selling it. It's not exactly under patent anymore.Beck/Herrmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17150638020283243716noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36762711.post-1652404923488013202009-07-28T15:31:33.270-04:002009-07-28T15:31:33.270-04:00Is the name of the game really just trying to prev...Is the name of the game really just trying to prevent future litigation against your clients?<br /><br />Why not try to prevent your clients from engaging in behavior that will lead to future litigation? <br /><br />There is a big difference between the two...<br /><br />Oh, and one reason MD won't bring back Benedictin is because it's made up of the active ingredient in Unisom, plus Vitamin B-12. Kind of hard to make a big profit when people can so easily "home brew" your product.Justinian Lanehttp://www.justinian.usnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36762711.post-80808011376471332982009-07-13T15:51:47.492-04:002009-07-13T15:51:47.492-04:00Any comment on Professor Underwood's swipe at ...Any comment on Professor Underwood's swipe at your supposedly "tainted" arguments on this blog about the demise of punitive damages class actions in the post-Williams era? He regards your points as "easy to discount" in his new Washington and Lee Law Review article, 66 WLLR 763, which can be found here: http://law.wlu.edu/deptimages/Law%20Review/66-2Underwood.pdf. I'm sure the readers of this blog (or at least myself) would be interested in a rejoinder.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36762711.post-18960524579949700862009-07-13T07:57:05.552-04:002009-07-13T07:57:05.552-04:00Yes, but this is quite explicitly a defense-orient...Yes, but this is quite explicitly a defense-oriented blog.Beck/Herrmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17150638020283243716noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36762711.post-60561063063822025482009-07-12T03:52:52.064-04:002009-07-12T03:52:52.064-04:00Uh. If the big corporation's PL defense bar co...Uh. If the big corporation's PL defense bar continues to be successful like the antitrust bar has been, you're going to find yourselves out of a job. <br /><br />In your opinions, have PL defendants ever a won a case they shouldn't have?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36762711.post-61829289818765546972009-07-10T18:28:34.442-04:002009-07-10T18:28:34.442-04:00This source seems to list some studies that found ...This source seems to list some studies that found Benedectin to possibly cause birth defects:<br /><a href="http://www.birthdefects.org/Research/bendectin2.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.birthdefects.org/Research/bendectin2.htm</a>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36762711.post-13957893449535244522009-07-10T17:19:42.981-04:002009-07-10T17:19:42.981-04:00To John:
Damn straight they were. Bendectin was ...To John:<br /><br />Damn straight they were. Bendectin was run off the market by litigation cost - not by any proof that it ever caused a single birth defect. That's why Daubert came about. The FDA still would let Merrell Dow market that drug, but pregnancy has become radioactive from a liability perspective, so now pregnant women don't have any effective morning sickness drugs available to them.<br /><br />Merrell Dow was 100% the good guys.Beck/Herrmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17150638020283243716noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36762711.post-34002050838715156212009-07-10T13:27:04.528-04:002009-07-10T13:27:04.528-04:00let me get this straight. Merell Dow Pharmaceutic...let me get this straight. Merell Dow Pharmaceuticals are the "good guys." Big law and big checks really has these two ninnies minds warped.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13152074791484221741noreply@blogger.com