Just a decade ago, it was still an open question whether parties could challenge the admissibility of expert testimony in class certification proceedings. The United States Supreme Court recognized the issue in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011), and suggested that experts should be scrutinized as usual, noting that “The District Court concluded that Daubert did not apply to expert testimony at the certification stage of class-action proceedings. We doubt that this is so . . .” Since then, multiple circuits have taken that hint and held that a court must conduct a full Rule 702 analysis before deciding whether to certify a class. The Fifth Circuit, in Prantil v. Arkema Incorporated, 986 F.3d 570 (5th Cir. 2021), became the fourth federal court of appeal to adopt this rule expressly. As the district court’s recent decision on remand in Prantil demonstrates, a full Rule 702 analysis can make the difference between certifying or rejecting a class.
It is axiomatic that a plaintiff must offer evidentiary support for each element of her claim in order to survive summary judgment. And a ubiquitous feature of product liability actions is the use of expert witnesses by both sides. These principles are, of course, related – the plaintiff usually must offer expert testimony in order to make a prima facie case, and the defense then attacks that prima facie case through expert testimony. But sometimes a plaintiff loses sight of the connection and, despite retaining an expert, fails to elicit the opinions she needs to make her case. As a recent decision from the Western District of Wisconsin illustrates, it pays for a defendant to carefully evaluate whether a plaintiff has checked all of the necessary boxes.
In Moore v. National Presto Industries, Inc., 2022 WL 1555875 (W.D. Wis. May 17, 2022), Plaintiff alleged that she was injured when she opened her pressure cooker while it was still pressurized, ejecting its contents onto her arm, causing burns. Plaintiff sued the cooker’s manufacturer, asserting strict liability claims for design defect and failure to warn as well as a claim for negligence. Defendant moved for summary judgment on each of these claims.
The United States Supreme Court will soon consider whether the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits a state from requiring that a corporation consent to personal jurisdiction in order to conduct business there.
The question arises from a Pennsylvania Supreme Court case, Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railroad Co., 266 A.3d 542 (Pa. 2021), which we wrote about here. In Mallory, plaintiff Robert Mallory attempted to hold the Norfolk Southern Railway Co. liable for the colon cancer he allegedly developed after being exposed to chemicals during the two decades that he worked for the railroad in Virginia and Ohio.
The JPML held its second hearing of 2022 at the end of March. We addressed the results of the first hearing recently here, and further observed the JPML’s trend over the course of the last several years in forming fewer MDL proceedings each year. As we move further into 2022, it is clear this trend has continued.
In April, the JPML formed two new MDLs out of four total petitions, bringing the cumulative total of new MDLs in 2022 to four (out of seven petitions considered)—well below the typical quarterly pace for new MDLs, including that of 2021. Through its orders, the JPML provided insights into the circumstances that justify MDL formation, and those that do not. We briefly discuss these orders below:
On April 14, 2022, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released draft conclusions in a report updating its analysis regarding formaldehyde exposure, suggesting that long-term exposures to small amounts of formaldehyde in the environment can increase the risk of rare head and neck tumors, leukemia, and other threats to health. The conclusions are not final agency action. Still, manufacturers should be aware of the potential for EPA’s analysis to influence both regulation and litigation at both the state and federal levels.
For over a decade, there has been much debate and study on the long-term effects of exposure to formaldehyde. The EPA’s new analysis is an update of a 2010 draft EPA report that was heavily panned by scientists, legislators, and chemical manufacturers and that drove the EPA back to the drawing board. For example, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine criticized the 2010 draft EPA report for failing to describe the rationale behind its methodology and failing to sufficiently support its conclusions.
Is the decision to submit a 510(k) application versus a Premarket Application (PMA) at the sole discretion of a medical device manufacturer? The answer is not always clear to product liability lawyers, judges, and juries. FDA recently published revised guidance on its “Refuse to Accept Policy for 510(k)s” that reinforces and clarifies that the regulatory path may be analyzed multiple times by FDA before it clears a 510(k) device. This clarification underscores the reality that the type of application submitted is largely dictated by the agency, not the applicant. This post discusses some key takeaways from this new guidance before briefly discussing how this guidance may be implicated in medical device litigation.