James M. Beck

James M. Beck

Senior Life Sciences Policy Analyst

Education

  • Princeton University, 1978, B.A., cum laude
  • University of Pennsylvania Law School, 1982, J.D.

Professional Admissions / Qualifications

  • Pennsylvania

Court Admissions

  • U.S. District Court - Eastern District of Pennsylvania
  • U.S. Supreme Court
  • U.S. Court of Appeals - Third Circuit

U.S. Supreme Court

Buckman Co. v. Plaintiffs Legal Committee, No. 98-1768 (U.S. filed Jun. 2, 1999) (whether fraud-on-the-FDA claims are impliedly preempted by federal law) (531 U.S. 341).

State High Courts

Betz (Simikian) v. Pneumo Abex LLC, No. 38, WAP, 2010 (Pa. filed April 25, 2011) (whether an expert opinion that every exposure to asbestos is a substantial contributing factor to the development of disease is generally accepted under the Grady/Frye test) (44 A.3d 27).
Centocor, Inc. v. Hamilton, No. 10-0223 (Tex. filed Jan. 18, 2011) (whether Texas adopts the learned intermediary rule and/or the DTC exception to the rule) (372 S.W.3d 140).
City of St. Louis v. Benjamin Moore & Co., No. SC88230 (Mo. filed Mar. 7, 2007) (whether Missouri should adopt either public nuisance or market share liability as forms of non-identification liability against product manufacturers) (226 S.W.3d 110).
Gregg v. V-J Auto Parts, Inc., No. 38 EAP 2005 (Pa. filed Nov. 28, 2005) (whether Pennsylvania should retain the “regularity, frequency and proximity” test for causation in asbestos cases and whether this test applies to circumstantial evidence) (943 A.2d 216).
Toy v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., Nos. 33 & 34 WAP 2005 (Pa. filed Nov. 4, 2005) (whether a consumer protection action requires proof of the reliance and causation elements of fraud) (928 A.2d 186).
Harsh v. Petroll, Nos 200-01 MAP 2004 (Pa. filed Jan. 31, 2005) (whether negligent drivers and crashworthiness defendants are joint tortfeasors; whether Pennsylvania should adopt Restatement Third §2) (887 A.2d 209).
District of Columbia v. Beretta, U.S.A., Nos. 01-CV-24, 01-CV-38 (D.C. en banc filed Nov. 8, 2004) (whether public nuisance and negligent marketing are viable causes of action against manufacturers of legal and non-defective products; both municipal and non-municipal plaintiffs) (872 A.2d 633).
City of Chicago v. Beretta USA Corp., No. 00-3541 (Ill. filed May 13, 2003) (whether public nuisance and negligent marketing are viable causes of action against manufacturers of legal and non-defective products) (821 N.E.2d 1099).
Young v. Bryco Arms, Nos. 93678, 93685 & 93728 (Ill. filed Mar. 26, 2003) (whether public nuisance is a viable cause of action against manufacturers of legal and non-defective products; not a municipal plaintiff case) (821 N.E.2d 1078).
Results: 1 - 10 of 40