Subject: Failure to Warn Standards

What’s the Catch? Interpreting the “Catch-All” Provision of Pennsylvania’s Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law

Share

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania recently ruled that a product vendor’s silence is not deceptive when the vendor has no duty to speak.

The “catch-all” provision of Pennsylvania’s Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (UTPCPL) prohibits vendors of goods and services from “[e]ngaging in any other fraudulent or deceptive conduct which creates a likelihood of confusion or of misunderstanding.” 73 P.S. § 201-2(4)(xxi). In March 2026, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania decided that omissions do not count as “deceptive conduct” under the UTPCPL.

Continue reading “What’s the Catch? Interpreting the “Catch-All” Provision of Pennsylvania’s Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law”

No Defect, No Negligence: Lessons from Rudzinskas v. Retractable Technologies, Inc.

Share

A recent summary judgment decision out of the Southern District of Georgia illustrates the critical role of defect evidence (or lack thereof) in negligence claims involving medical devices. As the plaintiff in Rudzinskas v. Retractable Technologies, Inc., No. 4:24-cv-009, 2025 WL 22772490 (S.D. Ga. Sep. 29, 2025) recently learned, allegations that a medical device malfunctioned are not sufficient evidence to survive summary judgment on negligent manufacturing and failure to warn claims.

In Rudzinskas, the plaintiff alleged that on two different occasions, when her husband injected her with vitamin B12 at home, the needles shot off their syringes and became dislodged inside her body (first in her buttock, and a few months later, in her arm). Plaintiff asserted that the syringes were marketed as containing needles that automatically retract from a patient into the barrel of the syringe when the plunger handle is fully depressed. Plaintiff sought medical attention following the alleged incidents. Plaintiff’s physicians confirmed the presence of the first needle and attempted to surgically extract it, but the surgery was unsuccessful. After the second incident two months later, the same surgeon attempted to confirm the presence of the second needle, but did not see it and did not perform surgery. Arising from these allegations, the plaintiff asserted two claims against the defendant for (1) negligent manufacture and (2) negligent failure to warn.

Continue reading “No Defect, No Negligence: Lessons from Rudzinskas v. Retractable Technologies, Inc.“

5 Major Drug and Device Developments of 2022

Share

As we ring in the new year, it is time once again to reflect on some of the most significant legal developments for drug and device companies this year. The list below is by no means exhaustive (who could forget the Rule 702 updates that took place this year, which will carry over into 2023?), but provides a brief recap and assessment of five of the most interesting and consequential developments affecting drug and device law in 2022.

Continue reading “5 Major Drug and Device Developments of 2022”

“Alternative Avenues” Argument in Failure-to-Warn Cases Adding an Additional Wrinkle to Medical Device Litigation

Share

A developing line of cases across the nation may have large implications for medical device manufacturers defending against failure-to-warn claims.  While a treating physician’s failure to read or rely on the manufacturer’s warnings has historically been fatal to a failure-to-warn claim in many jurisdictions (at least those without a “read and heed” presumption), plaintiffs have tried novel “alternative avenues” arguments to make summary disposition of the claim more difficult.

There are two theories under which a failure-to-warn claim may be brought in the products liability context:  a manufacturer with a duty to warn may breach its duty by either (1) failing to provide an adequate warning of the product’s potential risks (the “content theory”) or (2) failing to adequately communicate the warning to the ultimate consumer (the “communication theory”).  Plaintiffs have traditionally pursued failure-to-warn claims in prescription medical device cases under the content theory, with most courts holding that a treating physician’s failure to read or rely on the manufacturer’s warnings in the product’s instruction for use (“IFU”) is fatal to the claim.  See, e.g., Foster v. Ethicon, Inc., 2021 WL 1169473, at *7 (D.S.D. Mar. 26, 2021).

Continue reading ““Alternative Avenues” Argument in Failure-to-Warn Cases Adding an Additional Wrinkle to Medical Device Litigation”

Blurry Vision in Two Courts Leads to Denial of Preemption in Intraocular Lens Implant Case

Share

A recent Second Circuit preemption decision illustrates the importance of a clear-eyed approach to medical device preemption issues.

In Glover v. Bausch & Lomb, Inc., 6 F.4th 229 (2d Cir. 2021), the district court dismissed as preempted a complaint concerning vision loss from defective intraocular lenses implanted during cataract surgery. Plaintiff developed “Z syndrome,” permanently impairing her vision, and sued the manufacturer under the Connecticut Product Liability Act (CPLA) for failing to warn.  She alleged the defendant had failed to report prior Z Syndrome cases to the FDA, as required by the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA).

Continue reading “Blurry Vision in Two Courts Leads to Denial of Preemption in Intraocular Lens Implant Case”

Expert’s Failure to Identify Product Defect in Pressure Cooker or Inadequacy in Warnings Leads to Summary Judgment

Share

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.

Continue reading “Expert’s Failure to Identify Product Defect in Pressure Cooker or Inadequacy in Warnings Leads to Summary Judgment”