Louisiana Fourth Circuit Offers Clarification On the Role of Pharmaceutical Labeling and Package Inserts in Medical Malpractice Litigation: Deviation from Manufacturer Dosage Instructions is Not Ipso Facto Evidence of Breach

By | Louisiana Law Blog | April 7, 2014

The effect of a physician’s decision to deviate from the pharmaceutical company’s dosage instructions contained in a drug’s FDA approved package insert has been a recurring issue in medical malpractice litigation with many claimants contending that any deviation from the manufacturer’s instructions constitutes malpractice. In a recent case the Louisiana Fourth Circuit has now specifically rejected that theory.

Glass Half Full for U.S. Creditors in Jaffe V. Samsung Electronics Co.: Fourth Circuit Rules in Favor of U.S. Creditors in Chapter 15 Jurisdictional Dispute

By | Bankruptcy Report | March 5, 2014

On December 3, 2013, the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit upheld, in  Jaffe v. Samsung Electronics Co., the power, and the duty, of a United States Bankruptcy Court to condition the grant of Bankruptcy Code section 1521(a)(5) relief to a foreign insolvency administrator on conditions sufficient to protect the interests of all interested parties affected by the relief.

Fourth Circuit Requires Penalties for FCA Violations, Even Where No Government Economic Damage Found

By | Triage | December 31, 2013
Fourth Circuit Requires Penalties for FCA Violations, Even Where No Government Economic Damage Found

In a decision sure to generate comment during the new year, the Fourth Circuit ruled in United States ex rel. Bunk v. Gosselin World Wide Moving, No. 12-1369, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 25225 (Dec. 19, 2013), that penalties of some amount must be awarded for violations of the civil False Claims Act even though the trial court had determined the government suffered no economic damage. 

Fourth Circuit Weighs in On Supreme Court’s Class Action Decision in Walmart V. Dukes–or Does It?

By | The Compass | November 11, 2013
Fourth Circuit Weighs in On Supreme Court’s Class Action Decision in Walmart V. Dukes–or Does It?

In the Fourth Circuit’s recent decision in Scott v. Family Dollar Stores, the concurrence and dissent sharply disagreed about the significance of the majority opinion.  Depending on which opinion you read, Family Dollar is either a sweeping reinterpretation of the Supreme Court’s class action decision in Wal-Mart v. Dukes or a narrow holding reiterating the rule in favor of liberal amendment of complaints.  Time will tell who is right.

Fourth Circuit Finds District Court Erroneously Applied Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. V. Dukes in Denying Leave to Amend Complaint in Pay Discrimination Suit

Fourth Circuit Finds District Court Erroneously Applied Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. V. Dukes in Denying Leave to Amend Complaint in Pay Discrimination Suit

In its recent decision in Scott v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc., No. 12-1610 (4th Cir. Oct. 16, 2013), the Fourth Circuit ruled that the district court abused its discretion by refusing to allow plaintiffs asserting claims of gender-based pay discrimination leave to file an amended complaint based upon an erroneous interpretation of the Rule 23(a) commonality requirements for class certification set forth by the United States Supreme Court in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011).