Some jurisdictions place a strict burden on plaintiffs to show that a different warning would have led to different or non-usage of the product. Other jurisdictions, not so much. Of course, some jurisdictions impose a heeding presumption that requires rebuttal by the defendant. The standards differ, are elusive, and are sometimes incoherent. Assuming one grasps the nuances of the particular warning causation test in play, what are appropriate techniques and tactics to show that the plaintiff fails the test?

This is Part 5 of a six-part series. Part 1, The Ebb and Flow of the Law – A Year of Drug, Medical Device, and Vaccine-Related Preemption Developments is taking place on November 7, 2022, Part 2, Ethics and E-Discovery: Lessons Learned from the Alex Jones Case and Others is taking place on November 8, 2022, Part 3, Current Trends in Today’s Pharma and Device Litigation is taking place on November 9, 2022, Part 4, Healthcare Fraud and Abuse in a Digital World is taking place on November 9, 2022, and Part 6, MDL Trends is taking place on November 10, 2022.

CLE Information: This webinar is presumptively approved for 1.0 CLE credit in California, Connecticut, Illinois, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Texas and West Virginia. Applications for CLE credit will be filed in Florida, Ohio, and Virginia. Attendees who are licensed in other jurisdictions will receive a uniform certificate of attendance but Reed Smith only provides credit for the states listed. Please allow 4-6 weeks after the program to receive a certificate of attendance.