Report: New Medical, Pharma Filings in Federal Courts Declined
In the same timeframe, new filings for vehicle liability cases grew from 423 cases to 1,896 in 2016. Aircraft liability case filings ratcheted up from 49 cases to 94.
April 02, 2018 at 12:43 PM
4 minute read
Medical device and pharmaceutical liability lawsuit filings in federal courts, while still the leading category of products liability complaints, have declined slightly in recent years while vehicle and aircraft cases are on the rise, according to a new report released Monday.
In 2016, there were 29,149 medical device and pharmaceutical liability cases filed in federal courts, including multidistrict litigation, which makes up the overwhelming majority of products liability cases filed in federal courts.
That's a 45 percent drop from 2013, when new cases spiked to 53,066 from 29,198 the previous year, according to a report on trends in products liability litigation by Lex Machina, a legal analytics firm.
In the same timeframe, new filings for vehicle liability cases grew from 423 cases to 1,896 in 2016. Aircraft liability case filings ratcheted up from 49 cases to 94.
Dennis Raglin of San Francisco-based Rimon PC, who represents defendants in products liability cases, said the recent decline in medical product and pharmaceutical cases could be due to the fact that case filings of that type tend to come in “waves.”
He said that a recent spike in lawsuits against pharmaceutical companies over their supposed role in the spread of the opioid epidemic, such as the roughly 400 lawsuits filed in federal court in Ohio against drug manufacturers and distributors, may drive the numbers back up.
“It could break new ground on what happens in product liability because it's the first case that really tests the waters,” Raglin said of the Ohio opioid litigation.
The report did not include cases that dealt solely with claims of false advertising, negligent operation or installation or negligence against medical staff and health care providers.
According to the report, when excluding MDL cases, the powerhouses of all products liability litigation filings from 2009 to 2017 are the U.S. district courts in the Central District of California, the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and the District of New Jersey, which collectively accounted for 15 percent of all non-MDL products liability cases filed.
As for medical product and pharmaceutical cases, also excluding MDL cases, the top three courts were California's Central District, the District of New Jersey and the Eastern District of Louisiana; the three courts accounted for 22 percent of new filings of cases of that type.
With regard to how the federal district courts resolve the cases, the vast majority of medical device and pharmaceutical products liability cases are settled or resolved procedurally, the report states.
But when those issues are resolved on the merits of the case, the defense bar wins 90 percent of the time, according to the report.
The top firms representing plaintiffs in medical device and pharmaceutical cases that were terminated in 2016 or 2017—which tend to be small, products liability boutiques—are the St. Louis-based Carey Danis & Lowe; the California-based Knox Ricksen; Schuckit & Associates, which is based in Indiana; Lopez McHugh, based in New Jersey; and Holland & Hart of Colorado.
On the defense side, the top products liability firms tend to be larger and more nationally based. They were Shook, Hardy & Bacon; Reed Smith; Greenberg Traurig; Ice Miller; and Faegre Baker Daniels.
Of all product types, asbestos case filings saw the most significant decline. There were 35,124 asbestos cases filed in federal courts in 2011, which fell to 564 in 2012 and steadily declined to 139 cases in 2016.
The decline in asbestos case filings mirrors the trend in state courts across the country.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllPatent Trolls Come Under Increasing Fire in Federal Courts
Trade Fixtures in New York Eminent Domain Cases—What Qualifies and How Are They Valued?
10 minute readAttorneys ‘On the Move’: Morrison Cohen Adds White Collar Partner; Corporate/Securities Partner Joins Olshan
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Anticipating a New Era of 'Extreme Vetting,' Big Law Immigration Attys Prep for Demand Surge
- 2Deal Watch: What Dealmakers Are Thankful for in 2024
- 3'The Court Will Take Action': Judge Upbraids Combative Rudy Giuliani During Outburst at Hearing
- 4Attorney Sanctioned for Not Exercising Ordinary Care: This Week in Scott Mollen’s Realty Law Digest
- 5$1.9M Settlement Approved in Class Suit Over Vacant Property Fees
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250