var googletag = googletag || {}; googletag.cmd = googletag.cmd || []; googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.pubads().disableInitialLoad(); });
device = device.default;
//this function refreshes [adhesion] ad slot every 60 second and makes prebid bid on it every 60 seconds // Set timer to refresh slot every 60 seconds function setIntervalMobile() { if (!device.mobile()) return if (adhesion) setInterval(function(){ googletag.pubads().refresh([adhesion]); }, 60000); } if(device.desktop()) { googletag.cmd.push(function() { leaderboard_top = googletag.defineSlot('/22018898626/LC_Article_detail_page', [468, 60], 'div-gpt-ad-1591620860846-0').setTargeting('pos', ['1']).setTargeting('div_id', ['leaderboard_top']).addService(googletag.pubads()); googletag.pubads().collapseEmptyDivs(); googletag.enableServices(); }); } else if(device.tablet()) { googletag.cmd.push(function() { leaderboard_top = googletag.defineSlot('/22018898626/LC_Article_detail_page', [320, 50], 'div-gpt-ad-1591620860846-0').setTargeting('pos', ['1']).setTargeting('div_id', ['leaderboard_top']).addService(googletag.pubads()); googletag.pubads().collapseEmptyDivs(); googletag.enableServices(); }); } else if(device.mobile()) { googletag.cmd.push(function() { leaderboard_top = googletag.defineSlot('/22018898626/LC_Article_detail_page', [320, 50], 'div-gpt-ad-1591620860846-0').setTargeting('pos', ['1']).setTargeting('div_id', ['leaderboard_top']).addService(googletag.pubads()); googletag.pubads().collapseEmptyDivs(); googletag.enableServices(); }); } googletag.cmd.push(function() { // Enable lazy loading with... googletag.pubads().enableLazyLoad({ // Fetch slots within 5 viewports. // fetchMarginPercent: 500, fetchMarginPercent: 100, // Render slots within 2 viewports. // renderMarginPercent: 200, renderMarginPercent: 100, // Double the above values on mobile, where viewports are smaller // and users tend to scroll faster. mobileScaling: 2.0 }); });
×

Class-Action Suit Against Bayer to Go Forward

( 3 votes, average: 3.4 out of 5)
What do you think about this article? Rate it using the stars above and let us know what you think in the comments below.
The case, Smith V. Bayer Corporation, 09-1205, involves alleged victims of Bayer's anti-cholesterol drug Baycol. The drug, which is also known by its chemical name, cerivastatin, was voluntarily recalled by Bayer following 31 deaths associated with its use. Baycol was initially approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in 1997 but withdrawn from the market in August of 2009 due to its connection to rhabdomyolysis, a breakdown of muscle tissue that can lead to muscle toxicity and kidney failure.

According to the high court, the lower court did not have the authorization to ban the plaintiffs from seeking class certification at the state level. The case was thrown out by the Eighth Circuit US Court of Appeals after a federal judge, who was involved with multi-state litigation against the pharmaceuticals giant, banned other West Virginians from filing parallel class-action lawsuits against the company. While the federal judge's ruling was directed at preventing re-litigation of the matter, the US Supreme Court determined that he had overstepped his authority under the Anti-Injunction Act.


The Bayer Corporation expressed disappointment in the Supreme Court's decision and asserted that ''Bayer will continue to defend this case, including on the issue of class certification, should it move forward at the state level.''

Bayer further noted that it already paid out $1.17 billion in settlements to more than 3,100 individuals. The company also pointed out that the plaintiffs in this case did not seek class-action status for seven years after the filing of the initial lawsuit and the matter had been addressed and settled in a similar lawsuit. Bayer has energetically challenged the claims of plaintiffs who did not experience any side effects from the usage of Baycol.

The Supreme Court, however, stated that the matter before the state court was not interchangeable with the case in the federal court. The high court further said that the plaintiffs in Smith v. Bayer, were not linked to the federal case in a way that would subject them to the same court judgment.


Featured Testimonials

LawCrossing has great search capabilities where I was able to look for jobs tailored exactly to my needs.
Nathan


Facts

LawCrossing Fact #119: Economic uncertainty lies ahead, or so say an increasing number of experts. But that doesn’t mean you can’t find the job you want now!

 
Let's Do It!
Email:

Only LawCrossing consolidates every job it can find in the legal industry and puts all of the job listings it locates in one place.

  • We have more than 25 times as many legal jobs as any other job board.
  • We list jobs you will not find elsewhere that are hidden in small regional publications and employer websites.
  • We collect jobs from more than 250,000 websites and post them on our site.
  • Increase your chances of being seen! Employers on public job boards get flooded with applications. Our private job boards ensure that only members can apply to our job postings.

Success Stories

Out of all the other job boards I have used, LawCrossing was definitely the most impressive. I have received many job interviews from jobs I applied to on your site.
  • Mark Herskovitz Los Angeles, CA

Everyone Loves LawCrossing

I was incredibly happy with the site. I thought it was very easy to use; had significantly more postings than any other site (or combination of sites); and provided a lot of useful information. (the number, and caliber, of job postings). Exactly what I was looking for – I have 5 years’ experience and was looking for a lateral move or an in-house position, and that’s exactly what I found!
  • Sarah E. Potter Louisville, KY
+ Read More Success Stories
  • All we do is research jobs
  • Our team of researchers, programmers, and analysts find you jobs from over 50,000 career pages and other sources
  • Our members get more interviews and jobs than people who use "public job boards"