MEDICAL DEVICE, MASS TORT AND PHARMACEUTICAL LITIGATION
For virtually a decade, O’Brien & Ryan, LLP served as liaison counsel between Pennsylvania plastic and reconstructive surgeons in the national silicone breast implant litigation and the courts. We were one of the most active firms in the Pennsylvania consolidated breast implant litigation, working for the defense of plastic surgeons involved in those mass tort lawsuits. We represented healthcare provider defendants in over two hundred cases. Of those cases, we successfully tried to verdict two breast implant cases, including the first in the state.
Additionally, attorneys of the firm have served as counsel for physicians in the pedicle screw litigation and pharmaceutical litigation cases including Fen-Phen, Rezulin, Baycol, Celexa and Vioxx. In these capacities, we have accumulated experience not only in medical device and pharmaceutical litigation, but in the particulars of mass tort litigation. Our firm has worked with the courts to develop systems for becoming proficient in case management and discovery including obtaining, organizing and utilizing massive numbers of manufacturer documents and manufacturer employee depositions produced through the course of consolidated and multi-district litigation, in both hard copy and electronic form.
Contact:
Marshall L. Schwartz
(610) 834-6294
(610) 834-1749 Fax
Click to Email
O'Brien & Ryan News
No Results Found
The page you requested could not be found. Try refining your search, or use the navigation above to locate the post.
Supreme Court Reaffirms Earlier Ruling in Matter re: Nurse’s Competency To Provide Expert Opinion on Issue of Causation
The Pennsylvania Superior Court, in a 2006 ruling, held that a nurse was qualified to offer expert testimony in Freed v. Geisinger Medical Ctr, 607 Pa. 225, 5 A.3d 212 (2010). The Pennsylvania Supreme Court considered Freed in June of 2009 and the...
Venue In Legal Malpractice Case Found Appropriate In County In Which Law Firm Conducts 3% Of Its Business
A client who sues its lawyer for legal malpractice may sue in any county in which the law firm regularly conducts business regardless of whether it has an office in that venue. Zampana-Barry v. Donaghue, 246 EDA 2006 (March 8, 2007). A client sued his lawyer and...
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania Holds Medical Oncologist is Qualified to Render Standard of Care Opinions Against Otolaryngologist and Radiation Oncologist Under MCARE Act
In Vicari v. Spiegel, M.D., et al., 605 Pa. 381, 989 A.2d 1277 (2010), the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania held that a medical oncologist was qualified under the Medical Care Availability and Reduction of Error (MCARE) Act, 40 P.S. sec. 1303.512 (“the...
New Jersey Fee Shifting
In Saffer v. Willoughby, 143 N.J. 256 (1996), the Supreme Court of New Jersey said that a negligent attorney in a legal malpractice action is responsible for the legal expenses and attorneys’ fees incurred by a wronged client in prosecuting the legal malpractice...
Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas Limits Scope of “Hindsight” Testimony
In McLane v. Valley Medical Facilities, Inc., et al., Judge R. Stanton Wettick, Jr. denied plaintiffs' motion to compel defendant cytotechnologists to testify regarding their present review of slides which they reviewed in 2003-2005. Plaintiff-wife was diagnosed...
No Results Found
The page you requested could not be found. Try refining your search, or use the navigation above to locate the post.
Join Our Newsletter
Join our quarterly newsletter list for legal updates and firm news. Just enter your email below.