Walsworth’s Life Sciences practice focuses on the defense of pharmaceutical, medical device and dietary and herbal supplement and research institutions in product liability claims, brought individually, as mass tort, multi-district litigation (MDL), or class action litigation. With regard to medical devices, we have represented manufacturers of various implantable and other devices, including artificial joint, cardiac, spinal, abdominal, oncological, surgical, gynecological, cosmetic, mobility assistive, and dental devices. The firm’s clients derive substantial benefit from our experienced team of trial lawyers who have successfully taken numerous product cases to verdict and stand ready to try cases at any time and location.
We have represented clients as both local and regional counsel, and we have also served as national coordinating counsel for a number of our clients. In our role as local counsel, we have successfully assisted our clients and their national counsel in managing all aspects of discovery and trial preparation in large scale litigation. This includes making court appearances, taking key depositions, drafting and arguing dispositive motions, retaining and working with experts, preparing discovery requests and responses, assisting with document productions, law and motion, and trial attendance. We have also provided trial monitoring and reporting services for many of our clients. Our in-depth knowledge about our clients’ products and businesses leads to novel strategies and results that, in many cases, our clients thought at the beginning of the litigation were not possible. Walsworth clients look to our experience and level of commitment in developing national strategies and handling all phases of litigation, including appeals.
Our experience in this area includes:
- Medical Devices
- Pharmaceuticals
- Dietary and Herbal Supplements
- Nutraceuticals
- Mass Tort Litigation
- Multi-District Litigation
- Class Action Litigation
- False Advertising claims
- Unfair Competition claims
- Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) claims
In addition to exceptional representation in the courtroom, we also provide pre-litigation avoidance counseling. Our extensive litigation experience, technical expertise and knowledge of our clients’ industries are keys to our success in helping clients assess risk and avoid litigation.
Representative Successes
-
Bennett v. Various Defendants
Motion for summary judgment granted based on a lack of causation in a products liability case involving diet products claimed to cause multiple injuries, including cardiac arrhythmias.
-
Truong v. Teva Parenteral Medicines, Inc.
Obtained the dismissal of a pharmaceutical manufacturer from a personal injury product liability action.
-
Plaintiffs v. Branded Drug Manufacturer
Successfully resolved two personal injury product liability cases on behalf of a branded drug manufacturer, both for less than 5% of plaintiffs’ initial multi-million dollar demands. In similar cases filed in California state court and Massachusetts federal court, plaintiffs alleged claims for strict products liability, negligence, breach of warranty, and failure to monitor. Our attorneys developed a cooperative relationship with the client to successfully navigate the production of voluminous company documents and defend corporate depositions. As a result of this relationship, we narrowed plaintiffs’ claims through pleading challenges and dispositive motions in both cases to a single cause of action—failure to monitor. This was a novel claim based on our client’s direct relationship with its consumers. Then, considering defenses developed though discovery as to plaintiffs’ failure to monitor claim, both cases ultimately resolved through nominal individual settlements.
-
Hyoung v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals
Dismissal of generic pharmaceutical manufacturer from a personal injury product liability case where the plaintiff claimed she developed Stevens Johnson Syndrome from ingestion of drug.
-
Trigg-Wright v. Various Defendants
Dismissal of a drug manufacturer from a wrongful death action relying on an expert declaration filed in support of another defendant’s motion for summary judgment.
-
Gonzalez v. Various Defendants
Dismissal of a drug manufacturer client from a personal injury product liability action at the outset of the case in response to a planned filing of a demurrer.
-
Various USDC cases in Hawaii v. USP Labs
Dismissal of a product packager from a series of multi-plaintiff cases involving allegations of bodily injuries and death claimed to have been caused by ingestion of a dietary supplement.
-
Almaguer v. Centurion
Dismissal of a medical device manufacturer in a personal injury product liability case. Plaintiff sought damages for permanent injuries to a minor allegedly resulting from a defective circumcision clamp.
-
Plaintiff v. Medical Device Manufacturer
Successfully settled for 4% of plaintiff’s initial multi-million-dollar demand in a personal injury product liability case involving a pedicle screw. Our attorneys initially narrowed plaintiff’s claims on a pleading challenge to a negligence cause of action on the theories of failure to warn and manufacturing defect. Through purposeful and specific discovery, including multiple physician depositions, our attorneys gathered the evidence needed to support a strong motion for summary judgment. With the motion pending, and plaintiff’s counsel admittedly leery to oppose, our attorneys negotiated a favorable settlement for our client.
-
Matheson v. StelKast
Obtained the dismissal of a hip implant manufacturer in a personal injury product liability action.
-
Morgan v. Wang
Dismissal of a medical device manufacturer in a personal injury product liability and fraud action where plaintiff sought damages related to a spinal fusion procedure.
-
Sarkisyants v. Various Defendants
Motion for summary judgment granted in favor of a medical product distributor in a personal injury product liability action.
-
Judgment entered in favor of medical device manufacturer client following two rounds of successful dispositive motions. While our motion for summary judgment was pending, plaintiff was granted leave to amend her complaint to add new causes of action. A demurrer was filed on behalf of the manufacturer client and sustained by the court without leave to amend.
-
Dismissal of pharmaceutical manufacturer based on preemption in federal court personal injury product liability action involving ingestion of generic brand drug.
-
Obtained judgment on behalf of a manufacturer client in a product liability action where the plaintiff sued for personal injuries allegedly sustained as a result of the use of a Class III medical device during a procedure. The court granted judgment on the grounds that plaintiff’s claims were preempted by federal law.
-
Dismissal of a hernia mesh manufacturer after meeting and conferring on a demurrer based on implied preemption and the learned intermediary doctrine.
Professionals
Practice Area Contact