Mutual Pharmaceutical Company v. Bartlett: How the Decision Affects Us

By on July 18, 2013 - Comments off

In our previous blog post, we discussed the Supreme Court decision to prevent consumers from seeking legal recourse for injuries caused by defective generic drugs under preemption laws. The decision favors manufacturers and is conceptually in conflict with the 2009 Supreme Court ruling that brand-name manufacturers may be sued for damages caused by drug defects. If brand-name pharmaceutical manufacturers can be held accountable for unsafe drugs, then generic drug manufacturers should also be responsible for theirs.

Read the rest »


U.S. Drug Watchdog Urges Metal-on-Metal Hip Implant Recipients to Get Blood Tests

By on June 19, 2013 - Comments off

The U.S. Drug Watchdog is a consumer advocate for victims of defective medical devices and recalled drugs in the United States. The group considers the metal-on-metal hip replacement situation the largest medical device failure in U.S. history. Additionally, the group predicts that hundreds of thousands of metal-on-metal hip implant recipients will experience or have already experienced hip implant failure.

Anyone who has received a metal hip implant is encouraged to get a blood test to determine whether their chromium or cobalt levels are elevated. Increased levels of these metals are considered the best indicators of imminent hip implant failure. Other symptoms may also be present, including difficulty walking, swelling, and pain. Ultimately, revision surgery will be necessary if a hip implant fails, but permanent damage may already be done.

There are currently several metal hip implant manufacturers under legal scrutiny, including Stryker, Biomet, Zimmer, DePuy, and Wright. DePuy’s request for a new trial after a jury returned an $8.3 million verdict in favor of the plaintiff was recently rejected.


Impact of the Physician Payment Sunshine Act on State Regulations: Disclosure Laws

By on May 20, 2013 - Comments off

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 includes, among its provisions, the Physician Payment Sunshine Act (PPSA), which generally requires that pharmaceutical companies disclose payments to physicians for the marketing of their products. It is the first Congressional effort in the regulation of disclosure-related pharmaceutical marketing. The PPSA took effect in January 2012, but, as a federal law, does have an effect on any existing state regulations of drug marketing practices.

In this five-part blog series, we will identify particular state regulations in place before the Sunshine Act and then discuss the ultimate effect the federal law has on these state regulations.

Read the rest »


L.A. Civil Court Budget Cuts: Changing Trial Times and Staff

By on March 13, 2013 - Comments off

In addition to proposed Los Angeles County trial location changes, pending budget cuts will, if approved, range from $56 to 85 million dollars, and negatively impact multiple other aspects of the legal system. The law firm of Robinson Calcagnie Robinson Shapiro Davis, Inc. is against the cuts due to the limitations they will impose on justice and fairness in both civil and criminal courts if passed.

Read the rest »


Government Website Created for Physician Sunshine Act

By on February 20, 2013 - Comments off

For years, the pharmaceutical industry has targeted physicians and teaching hospitals to help them market their products. Drug companies provide free samples of their product for physician’s to use and offer lucrative opportunities for those who promote their drug, including gifts, dining and entertainment, lecturing opportunities in resort destinations and other forms of payment. This relationship helps the pharmaceutical company and the physician but not necessarily the patient. A physician who is being paid to promote a product may not be objective when determining the most effective medication for a patient.

Read the rest »