More Bogus Arguments by Proponents of Tort Reform

After several states passed tort reform legislation in 2004, the Economic Policy Institute published a report titled “The frivolous case for tort law change: Opponents of the legal system exaggerate its costs, ignore its benefits,” that revealed a number of important flaws in the argument for the necessity for and benefit from tort reform. Many


Are Surrogate Markers Too Low a Bar for FDA Approval?

The recent approval of a drug for use in combating leukemia by the US Food and Drug Administration has shed light on the relatively controversial, albeit common practice by that organization of using surrogate markers of efficacy for determining the benefit of a given drug or therapy.  Some believe this constitutes a low bar for


Three Myths About Tort Reform

Tort reform has sullied the political landscape of this country for years.  A set of proposed laws and regulations at both the state and federal level, one central aim of tort reform is to limit the compensation an injured party can recover in a personal injury lawsuit, or “tort,” attempting to “save” health care from


Cymbalta lawsuits from excessive withdrawal symptoms and inadequate instructions

Because Eli Lilly, manufacturer of the psychiatric drug Cymbalta (duloxetine), has failed to provide adequate instruction as to properly taper the drug at discontinuation, thousands of patients across the country and around the world have faced serious withdrawal symptoms unnecessarily, prompting large numbers of Cymbalta withdrawal lawsuits. According to MedlinePlus, a medical encyclopedia curated by



Triumph cruise plaintiffs not likely to be triumphant

Cruise lines take advantage of favorable contract law to make sure their legal liability is limited.  So don’t place any bets in favor of the plaintiffs: MIAMI – Lawsuits are already filed in this month’s disastrous Triumph cruise ship voyage, but the legal deck is stacked in parent company Carnival’s favor, mainly because of the


Binding arbitration clauses in insurance contracts are not enforceable in washington

Good news for opponents of mandatory arbitration clauses. In an en banc decision issued on January 17, 2013, the Washington Supreme Court held that binding arbitration clauses in insurance contracts are unenforceable under a state statute, RCW 48.18.200(1)(b). The Court further held that the McCarran-Ferguson Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1012, shields the relevant state statute



tort reform bill dies in Indiana

Good riddance: Indiana won’t be passing a bill requiring losers to pay all costs and attorney fees in civil lawsuits. . . . . The problem with the bill is simple, Steele said: “It doesn’t work.” Steele, R-Bedford, said he had filed “exactly the same bill” in 1995 and got an earful from just about