LexisNexis Legal News Video for August 30, 2010

Among the stories on this video edition of LexisNexis Legal News, the second Kugel surgical patch bellwether trial results in a plaintiff verdict when a Rhode Island federal court jury awards $1.5 million to a man who claimed the device caused him internal injuries and a Pennsylvania jury decides that two women’s use of Wyeth’s Prempro did not cause them to develop breast cancer.

Stories on this episode:

1. The second Kugel surgical patch bellwether trial went to the plaintiff August 23rd when a Rhode Island federal court jury awarded $1.5 million to a man who claims that the device caused him internal injuries. LexisNexis Mealeys Emerging Drugs & Devices Tom Moylan has the story.

2. A Florida jury has handed a smoker’s widow $270,000 in punitive damages, two weeks after awarding her a $2.2 million compensatory award.

3. A Pennsylvania Common Pleas Court jury in August decided that two women’s use of Wyeth’s Prempro did not cause them to develop breast cancer. LexisNexis Mealey’s Hormone Replacement Therapy editor Shane Dilworth reports the jury found that the maker of the hormone replacement therapy should not be required to pay damages for the women’s illnesses.

4. An Illinois jury in mid-August awarded a man with “popcorn lung” from his place of work a $32 million dollar verdict.

5. A Kentucky federal judge has refused to bar Cadbury Adams from marketing chewing gum under the name Dentyne Pure.

6. A group of Internet users have filed a putative class action in California federal court alleging that certain technology has tracked their online activity without their knowledge or consent, violating state and federal computer and privacy laws. LexisNexis Mealeys CyberTech editor Mark Rogers explains.

7. BP announced in mid-August that it would transfer responsibility for individual and business claims related to the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf Coast Claims Facility.

8. A Pennsylvania Superior Court panel in mid-August affirmed a ruling for the defendant in a skiing injury action. The appeals court said the plaintiff’s injuries were inherent to the activity he was participating in when he collided with the defendant at a recreational area.

Duration : 0:7:7


Post Author: mark

Leave a Reply