and I’m “up to date” only because this is the time of year I start my mornings with a cup of coffee, Overlawyered, Volokh, the stock markets for a bit, and then (if its the right day of the week) ScotusBlog to read the livestream of court announcements. Became furious, years ago, w/ TV reporting on decisions and have made a habit of reading them for myself ever since.

Had it not been so very recent, I’d likely have forgotten it myself.

As a Policy Matter, I didn’t care for the outcome in Wyeth, and MSD seemed like a “well, duh!” decision to me.

@CarLitGuy– You are more up to date on this law than I am: I had missed the Merck-Sharp-Dohme case. (IANAL, either.)

At some point I will post a link or two on the decision in Merck v. Albrecht. However, aside from both cases having to do with labeling of products, it was decided on the basis of legal issues remote from those in play here.

Followup. SCOTUS just clarified what constitutes clear evidence regarding FDA labeling of drugs for State Law preemption claims.

As I’m not a lawyer, I won’t tell you what it means, but its unanimous and not uninteresting reading. Also, its NOT my area of relative expertise.

https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/merck-sharp-dohme-corp-v-albrecht/

Maybe HSC or another, better qualified than I, can provide the cliff notes for those not of a legal bent?

SCotUS has upheld medical verdicts against manufacturers who have done absolutely nothing wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyeth_v._Levine.
Wyeth was an open-and-shut malpractice case, but the clinic responsible for destroying the patient’s arm had no malpractice insurance. (My own preference is for Federal and/or State backstops for practitioners without malpractice insurance, perhaps financed in part by a levy on jackpot verdicts).)

Perhaps this plaintiff looked less sympathetic because she had performed the malpractice on herself.

“Surely most plaintiff’s lawyers prefer to bill on contingency for a products liability claim, no?”

I would think no. They’ll do it because most clients can’t afford to pay hourly up front. However, given a client that has the resources to pay up front, I would think that every lawyer would prefer getting paid up front to a contingency deal no matter how good the client’s case is.

Surely most plaintiff’s lawyers prefer to bill on contingency for a products liability claim, no? Although a client willing to burn money might be able to find one to agree to work on hourly.

Plaintiffs lawyers bills by the hour. Unless the client is looking for a contingency fee deal, it’s not in their best interests to tell the client they have no case.