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.
Befitting a year in which the lingering COVID-19 pandemic caused delays in almost every aspect of daily life, Pullman & Comley’s annual survey of notable health law cases from.
A Connecticut federal judge won't let Abbott Laboratories Inc. out of a suit alleging its baby formula made with cow's milk caused a premature infant's death, with two of the surviving counts waiting on answers to questions sent to the state Supreme Court.
Legal Disclaimer
You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review s (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC s Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.
When Can Hospitals Be Subjected to Strict Product Liability? The Connecticut Supreme Court Is Mulling It Over. Wednesday, December 16, 2020
Only a “product seller” can be held liable under the Connecticut Product Liability Act (“CPLA”). The CPLA defines a “product seller” as “any person or entity, including a wholesaler, distributor or retailer who is engaged in the business of selling such products whether the sale is for resale or for use and consumption.” Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-572m(a). Thus, drug and medical device manufacturers are typically named as defendants in an action where the plaintiff alleges, for example, that a failure to warn has rendered a drug or medical device defective, because the manufacturers are “in the business of selling such products.” But are hospitals? That is the question currently facing the Connecticut Supreme Court in