Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Personal Injury Law Blogs -> Drug and Device Law

Personal Injury Law

: Drug and Device Law

Timber.....

By James M. Beck and Mark Herrmann

Back in April we posted about the "funky" non-manufacturer claims in Timberlake v. Synthes Spine Co., 2009 U.S. Dist. Lexis 29074 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 31, 2009).  Those claims - trying to hold people who conducted clinical trials liable in a post-approval case for alleged misconduct in how the trials were conducted - were dismissed, but with leave to replead.  You can read all about that in the prior post.

We promised then that we would "watch those later proceedings with interest," given the unprecedented nature of the non-manufacturer claims.  Well, in Timberlake v. Synthes Spine, Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. Lexis 11967 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 10, 2010) - an otherwise uninteresting decision letting the plaintiff get away with a belated expert designation (has a case ever gone to trial without the plaintiff trying to slip in a new last-minute expert report?), we noticed this:  "Plaintiff points out that his recent motion to dismiss the Viscogliosi Brothers group of defendants greatly streamlines this case."  Id. at *5.

That means that Timberlake's lost its funk.  The bizarre claims have been voluntarily dropped.

Since we promised, we thought we'd let you know.

Full post as published by Drug and Device Law on February 19, 2010 (boomark / email).