Search for: "In Re Dalkon Shield Litigation"
Results 1 - 20
of 23
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
27 Oct 2008, 11:59 am
Anita Bernstein wrote last year:"[N]ot since the litigation-hastened demise of the very dangerous Dalkon Shield intrauterine device in 1974 has any pharmaceutical product demonstrated that personal-injury liability can be a source of social utility. [read post]
4 Oct 2010, 5:04 am
In the Dalkon Shield litigation, he helped organize and administer the distribution of the $2.4 billion trust established to compensate 100,000 women who had sued the maker of the device. [read post]
2 Feb 2011, 6:30 pm
For instance, Rabin tells us that the “signals” sent by mass tort cases involving asbestos, Agent Orange, and Dalkon Shield, were “encouraging,” while the Bendectin litigation was one of the “notable litigation failures. [read post]
11 Sep 2009, 7:59 am
The approach has been used in many cases ranging from exposure to toxic chemicals like, Agent Orange and asbestos, to products liability cases involving medical drugs and devices, such as the Dalkon shield and breast implants. [read post]
11 Sep 2009, 7:59 am
The approach has been used in many cases ranging from exposure to toxic chemicals like, Agent Orange and asbestos, to products liability cases involving medical drugs and devices, such as the Dalkon shield and breast implants. [read post]
11 Sep 2009, 7:59 am
The approach has been used in many cases ranging from exposure to toxic chemicals like, Agent Orange and asbestos, to products liability cases involving medical drugs and devices, such as the Dalkon shield and breast implants. [read post]
24 Mar 2016, 11:31 am
After the Dalkon Shield litigation in the 1980s, there are only two FDA IUD devices and ParaGard's device is one of them.The FDA has approved only one IUD that uses copper as its active ingredient, the ParaGard T-380A, which was sold only by its manufacturer and not available on third-party websites in the U.S. [read post]
24 Jun 2010, 5:00 am
No adequacy.In Re Northern District of California, Dalkon Shield IUD Products Liability Litigation, 693 F.2d 847 (9th Cir. [read post]
1 Jul 2010, 5:00 am
July 3, 1978) (Dalkon Shield – personal injury). [read post]
8 Mar 2009, 10:00 pm
"Most notably, the Dalkon Shield intrauterine device, introduced in 1970, was linked to serious infections and several deaths, not to mention a large number of pregnancies. . . . [read post]
27 Apr 2011, 3:36 pm
An extension of the statute of limitations for Dalkon Shield claims. 16. [read post]
23 Nov 2009, 7:13 am
The Medical Device Amendments followed close on the heels of the Dalkon Shield controversy, which prompted states to act. [read post]
11 Aug 2011, 1:09 pm
It took the Vaccine Act to bury those.We saw it again in Bone Screw litigation, pre-Lohr. [read post]
15 Apr 2022, 2:14 am
Her areas of expertise included multi-district litigation, such as the Dalkon Shield, L-Tryptophan, and Breast Implant cases, as well as in construction law. [read post]
16 Aug 2007, 7:20 am
While we almost always have questions relating to the plaintiff's treatment, usually what we're even more interested in is what the prescriber thinks of the drug itself.Was s/he already aware of the claimed risk? [read post]
3 Nov 2010, 6:01 am
There will be a Dalkon Shield, or a Vioxx, or a Phen Fen. [read post]
20 May 2022, 2:30 am
Her areas of expertise included multi-district litigation, such as the Dalkon Shield, L-Tryptophan, and Breast Implant cases, as well as in construction law. [read post]
16 Dec 2010, 1:54 pm
” In re Northern Dist. of California, Dalkon Shield IUD Litigation, 693 F.2d 847, 854 (9th Cir. 1982).No reason at all – except to prejudice the defendants.We know it – that’s why we fight any attempt to consolidate cases for trial tooth and nail. [read post]
10 Jul 2008, 5:31 pm
Dalkon Shield Claimants Trust, 1994 WL 255392, at *4 (D.N.H. [read post]
23 Jun 2014, 12:57 pm
ITERATIVE DISJUNCTIVE SYLLOGISM Basic propositional logic teaches that the disjunctive syllogism (modus tollendo ponens) is a valid argument, in which one of its premises is a disjunction (P v Q), and the other premise is the negation of one of the disjuncts: P v Q ~P_____ ∴ Q See Irving Copi & Carl Cohen Introduction to Logic at 362 (2005). [read post]
