- SCOTUS says that drug-labeling laws that require generic drugs to use the same labels as their name-brand equivalents mean patients taking the generic version of Reglan can’t sue over failure to warn.
- Abnormal Use writes about the possible preemption fallout from the FDA’s Avastin decision.
- Vitamins recalled for failure to meet standards for child-resistant caps.
This from Abnormal Use:
The sinister suggestion that major corporations have conspired to use the Stella Liebeck McDonald’s hot coffee case as a tool to promote tort reform is odd, although film maker Susan Saladoff and her pals at The Pop Tort seem to believe that business interests have spent millions in an effort to make the Plaintiff Stella Liebeck the poster plaintiff for tort reform. That’s one of the themes of Saladoff’s Hot Coffee documentary, which we reviewed yesterday. However, there really isn’t any evidence to prove such a corporate scheme, although as always, the absence of evidence of a conspiracy serves to confirm its existence in some eyes.
Well, I see your sigh and I raise you three sighs. I don’t know exactly what Abnormal Use is doing here. It is a relative of making up a strawman. But it is not exactly OliverStoneLand to suggest that the tort reform movement funded by corporate America (who else would pay for it?) used a verdict that upset people to their advantage. Why would they engage in such a conspiracy? Because they would be idiots if they didn’t. There is nothing “sinister” about it. It would be “tort reform malpractice” not to do so.
I remember a hospital in Rhode Island performed brain surgery on the wrong side of the brain three times in one year a while back (here, I Googled it). If a bunch of trial lawyer lobbyists were not sitting in a dark room somewhere drinking cognac trying to figure out how to exploit that, they should all be fired.
Everyone tries to use facts that support their argument to their advantage. You do this on tort reform, politics, and when arguing if Mays as better than Mantle. It is the way of things, the way of humans.
With all due respect to Ted Frank, the Drug and Device Law Blog is making a mad run at the all-time lead for snarky comments about plaintiffs. I’m a traditionalist; I would like to see a playoff.
Here’s the latest open-ended, unexplained jab at plaintiffs made in a comment about a federal judge’s ruling in the Kugel hernia mesh cases:
The court rejected defendants’ motion to strike plaintiffs’ experts, who were an assistant professor of surgery at Harvard Medical School and a long-time professor of bioengineering and orthopedic surgery research at the University of Pennsylvania. We don’t see many plaintiffs’ experts with those kinds of credentials, and their credentials and experience appear to have persuaded the court to overlook an otherwise shaky foundation for their testimony.
Really? Where is the evidence/argument you refer to that this federal judge was overwhelmed by the experts’ credentials? I’m fine with anyone taking this position – who knows, maybe they are right – but how about offering a fact or two to support your position. If you are unabashedly committed to taking the defense position on every issue, it is a little hard to jump all in based on the unsupported analysis.
I never agree much with Mark but I always enjoyed his writing. His new column for Above the Law is definitely for in-house counsel and defense lawyers. But I’m sure I will read it, anyway.
This is something every blog must struggle with. What voice should the blog have? First-person (or the blogger variant–the royal first-person, where everything is about “we” and “us,” though the blog is written by one person), or third-person?
Corporations frequently choose a corporate voice, making everything about the corporation. The voice of the blog is often the “voice” of the corporation (corporations are legal entities with rights, of course). But this can be tough to read sometimes and still loses the personal flair of a first-person narrative.
So, when my Google Reader blog-feed listed AstraZeneca’s recent post, “Connections for Cardiovascular Health,” I was interested to see that they are gravitating toward a first-person voice. The side panel shows that the main contributor and “voice” is Earl Whipple, the blog editor and senior director in the AZ corporate communications group. The sidebar mentioned that others would contribute (the CEO had a post on March 23), but perusing the posts, it looks like Earl is the only contributor except for occasional guests.
No word on whether his partner, Jim Beck, will continue it alone, or will find another co-conspirator. We hope he will continue for selfish reasons–the blog is an invaluable resource and, despite it being wrong most of the time (playfully stated–the Drug Recall Lawyer Blog is on the other side of the aisle, after all), it was always entertaining and enlightening.
At any rate–good luck Mark. We wish you the best.