Products Intended to Fight COVID-19 Protected by Broad – but Not Unlimited – Immunity From Suit

2020-05-22T14:40:22+00:00 May 22nd, 2020|Categories: Epidemiology, Johanna L. Matloff, Julie L. Martin, Manufacturing Processes, Warnings and Code Compliance|Tags: , , , |

On January 31, 2020, the Secretary of the United States Department of Health and Human Services declared a public health emergency under the Public Health Service Act to aid the health care community’s response to the spread of the COVID-19 virus.  As global efforts to treat, prevent, and slow the

Defining the Boundaries for Pre-emption of Drug Labeling Claims

2020-02-18T21:00:25+00:00 February 18th, 2020|Categories: Johanna L. Matloff, Julie L. Martin, Manufacturing Processes, Warnings and Code Compliance|Tags: , , |

Drug warning labels must comply with federal regulations and receive approval from the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) before going to market. Therefore, manufacturers may argue that state law actions related to the information contained in – or missing from – the labels should be preempted if it would be

It’s Not Too Late in Massachusetts: Claims for Latent Personal Injuries Caused by Dangerous or Defective Products

2019-05-29T15:26:29+00:00 May 24th, 2019|Categories: Johanna L. Matloff, Warnings and Code Compliance|

A number of former NFL players recently filed an appeal in the Illinois Appellate Court challenging a lower court ruling that dismissed their claims against helmet manufacturer Riddell as untimely. The players alleged that Riddell, along with the NFL, failed to warn them of the long-term consequences of sustaining multiple

Catching Up: Fact Gathering Defense Tactics in Product Liability Actions

2018-11-08T16:37:26+00:00 November 8th, 2018|Categories: Julie Muller, Thomas E. Peisch|Tags: |

The process of fact-gathering is a crucially-important part of any defense effort in a product liability action. Unfortunately, in most situations, the plaintiff starts the contest far ahead, since she (and her counsel) usually have first knowledge of the incident and the earliest opportunity to obtain the relevant documents and

Estate Claims Under the Massachusetts Uniform Probate Code

2018-10-03T15:24:55+00:00 October 3rd, 2018|Categories: Henry H. Tran|Tags: , |

Defense counsel in any action brought by the personal representative of a decedent’s estate should take care to review the plaintiff’s probate file to ensure that the estate representative has proper standing to bring the action. The Massachusetts Uniform Probate Code (MUPC), enacted in 2012, introduced several categories of personal

Permitted Practice or Not? That is the Chapter 93A, Section 3 Question – Tips for the Practitioner

2018-09-21T19:46:28+00:00 September 5th, 2018|Categories: Katherine Kelter, Thomas E. Peisch|

A common defense to claims of unfair or deceptive conduct brought under the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act, Chapter 93A, is that the actions about which the plaintiff complains actually are exempt from liability as “permitted practices.” A recent Massachusetts product labeling case involving adult beverages reveals a few tips for

Recent Massachusetts Decision Establishes Privilege Applicable to Post-Incident Analyses

2018-07-26T21:22:49+00:00 July 26th, 2018|Categories: Daniel Fishman, Johanna L. Matloff, Thomas E. Peisch|

Most products liability defense lawyers are thoroughly familiar with evidentiary protections offered to post-incident repairs or improvements. Likewise, counsel are well-versed in the elements of the attorney-client privilege and work-product immunity and the discovery and evidentiary limits those doctrines impose on their adversaries. Less well-known is the so-called “self-critical analysis” privilege,

Massachusetts Recognizes New Cause of Action Against Drug Manufacturers

2018-04-18T14:11:58+00:00 March 29th, 2018|Categories: Katherine Kelter, Manufacturing Processes, Pathology|

In a dramatic turnaround, the highest court in Massachusetts has recognized a cause of action against a drug manufacturer whose product was not even being used by the allegedly injured plaintiff. In Rafferty v. Merck & Co., 479 Mass. 141 (2018), Chief Justice Ralph Gants, speaking for the Supreme Judicial

Fraudulent Joinder and Misjoinder – Practice Points for Defendants

2018-03-21T22:13:39+00:00 March 9th, 2018|Categories: Daniel Fishman, Erin K. Higgins, Thomas E. Peisch|

It is no secret that manufacturers and sellers of products prefer to litigate product liability claims in the federal courts rather than in their state counterparts. The reasons for this preference include a perceived higher-quality of judges, more intense scrutiny of “junk science,” more conservative jurors, and a more predictable

Load More Posts