Foley Hoag LLP publishes this quarterly Update primarily concerning developments in product liability and related law from federal and state courts applicable to Massachusetts, but also featuring selected developments for New York and New Jersey. If you find this update useful, please encourage your colleagues and contacts to also register with us on our website. As always, you can access all of our publications at https://foleyhoag.com/news-and-insights/.
Included in this Issue:
MASSACHUSETTS
Massachusetts Federal Court Grants Summary Judgment On Failure-To-Warn, Negligent Misrepresentation And Deceptive Practices Claims Against Surgical Stapler Manufacturer, As Plaintiffs Offered No Evidence Surgeon Reviewed Stapler Instructions Or Adverse Event Reports Or Relied On Manufacturer Statements, And Manufacturer Has No Duty To Publicly Report Adverse Events
Massachusetts Federal Court Applies Learned Intermediary Doctrine To Failure-To-Warn Claims Against Medical Device Manufacturer In States With And Without “Heeding Presumption,” Holding Presumption In Former State Supplies Inference Adequate Warning Would Have Changed Physician’s Conduct And Thus Requires Summary Judgment Denial, But Grants Judgment In State Without Presumption Where Plaintiff Did Not Offer Evidence Adequate Warning Would Have Changed Physician’s Conduct
NEW YORK/NEW JERSEY SUPPLEMENT
Third Circuit Holds Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (“FIFRA”) Expressly Preempts Failure-To-Warn Claim Against Pesticide Manufacturer Because EPA-Approved Labeling Imposed a “Requirement” Under FIFRA And Pennsylvania’s Duty to Warn Would Impose A “Different” Or “Addition[al]” Requirement
New York Federal Court, After Twice Excluding As Unreliable Plaintiffs’ Expert Testimony That Prenatal Acetaminophen Exposure Can Cause Autism Spectrum Disorder And ADHD In Humans, Holds Defense Expert’s Deposition, Literature And LinkedIn Statements Also Insufficient To Support General Causation Finding
New York Appellate Division Holds Plaintiff’s Failure-To-Warn And Design Defect Claims Against Seller Of Compressed Gas Tank Preempted By Federal Hazardous Materials Transportation Act Of 1975 (“HMTA”), As Claims Were “About” The “Designing And Manufacturing” Of A “Package, Container, Or Packaging Component”—Specifically, A Valve Assembly On The Tank—That Was “Qualified For Use In Transporting Hazardous Material In Commerce”
We use cookies to enhance user experience, improve functionality and performance, and for analysis of website traffic. By clicking “accept”, you agree to the use of cookies. For more information about our cookie policy and the information we collect, please review our Privacy Statement.
Foley Hoag
Email Disclaimer
Transmitting information to us by e-mail unilaterally does not establish an attorney-client relationship or impose an obligation on either the law firm or even the receiving lawyer to keep the transmitted information confidential. By clicking "OK," you acknowledge that we have no obligation to maintain the confidentiality of any information you submit to us unless we already represent you or unless we have agreed to receive limited confidential material/information from you as a prospective client. Thus, if you are not a client or someone we have agreed to consider as a prospective client, information you submit to us by e-mail may be disclosed to others or used against you.
If you would like to discuss becoming a client, please contact one of our attorneys to arrange for a meeting or telephone conference. If you wish to disclose confidential information to a lawyer in the firm before an attorney-client relationship is established, the protections that the law firm will provide to such information from a prospective client should be discussed before such information is submitted. Thank you for your interest in Foley Hoag.
