The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the federal Medicaid Act preempts a North Carolina third-party liability law authorizing the state to recoup as much as one-third of any medical malpractice jury award, regardless of how much of the award was designated for medical expenses by a judge or jury.
Federal law does not preempt a product liability suit against drug maker PLIVA based on the company’s alleged failure to update its warning label for the generic form of Reglan, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled in reversing a dismissal.
Federal law regulating the airline industry does not completely preempt the personal injury claims of a disabled passenger who claimed she didn’t receive the wheelchair assistance she requested, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled in reversing a dismissal.
Federal law does not bar a railroad worker from recovering damages for degenerative conditions caused by having to continuously walk on crushed rocks in rail yards, Maryland’s highest has ruled in upholding a $1.25 million judgment.
Published: March 1, 2013
Tags: Children’s Motrin, consumer protection, drug litigation, failure to warn, FDA, Food and Drug Administration, Johnson & Johnson, Motrin, preemption, Stevens-Johnson Syndrome, Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis
A Massachusetts jury awarded $63 million to a teenaged girl and her parents after the girl suffered an adverse reaction to Children’s Motrin that left her scarred and blind, with permanent brain and lung damage.
And the award may increase.
A debt adjuster could not enforce a binding arbitration clause in its service contract when sued by a customer for violating state consumer protection law, the Washington Supreme Court has ruled in affirming judgment.
Federal disability discrimination law may require a state agency to deviate from state law in order to accommodate a mentally ill individual’s claim for benefits, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled in reversing a dismissal.
Federal transportation law does not completely preempt the state tort claims of a motorcyclist who suffered catastrophic injuries in a collision with a train at a railroad crossing, the 3rd Circuit has ruled.
Does the Securities Litigation Standards Act preempt state law class actions claiming that the defendant engaged in a Ponzi scheme involving misrepresentations about transactions with securities covered by the federal act?
Chadbourne & Parke LLP v. Troice, No. 12-79, consolidated with Willis of Colorado Inc. v. Troice, No. 12-86 and Proskauer Rose LLP v. Troice, No. 12-88. Certiorari granted: Jan. 18, 2013. Ruling below: 675 F.3d 503 (5th Cir. 2012).
Does the Securities Litigation Standards Act preempt state-law class actions claiming that the defendant engaged in a Ponzi scheme involving misrepresentations about transactions with securities covered by the federal act?
The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to answer this question.