MoCRA: Updates to FDA Safety Substantiation Requirements
Missouri Court of Appeals Reverses $700,000 Post-Judgment Interest Award in Wrongful Death Case
In reversing nearly $700,000 in post-judgment interest, the Missouri Court of Appeals for the Western District clarified that post-judgment interest can be recovered only after the trial court enters a final judgment. Notably, in wrongful death cases, a trial court’s failure to apportion damages among beneficiaries renders a judgment not final and precludes post-judgment interest.
Minnesota Repudiates Decades of Precedent for Survival and Wrongful Death Actions.
On May 20, 2023, the Minnesota legislature amended Minnesota’s Survival of Claims and Wrongful Death statutes. The amendments extend a potential-defendant’s liability by: (1) allowing trustee-plaintiffs to maintain claims on behalf of a deceased party, that historically could not be brought after death; and (2) allowing trustee-plaintiffs to potentially recover for all damages allegedly suffered by the decedent, not just economic harms stemming from and related to the death of the deceased party.
MoCRA: Good Manufacturing Practices – Why Should You Care?
As discussed in the Product Perspective, the Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act of 2022 (MoCRA) represents a major shift in cosmetic industry regulations. This article is one of a series of posts diving into each aspect of MoCRA as we await its full implementation. We will focus on MoCRA’s mandate requiring the Federal Drug Administration (FDA) to establish Good Manufacturing Practices (“GMP”) that the cosmetic industry will have to follow going forward.
MoCRA: Facility Registration and Product Listing – Where to Begin?
As deadlines approach for cosmetic manufactures to comply with all requirements of MoCRA, there might be some worry on where to start. Husch Blackwell’s chapter by chapter breakdown of MoCRA provides guidance on where to begin. This chapter discusses the requirements of facility registration and product listing with compliance due date of July 1, 2024.
MoCRA: Is My Product a “Cosmetic” and Who Is My “Responsible Person”?
As discussed in the Product Perspective, the Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act of 2022 (MoCRA) represents a major shift in cosmetic industry regulations. This article is one of a series of posts diving into each aspect of MoCRA as we await its full implementation. To begin, we will discuss whether MoCRA applies to your product and, if so, which entity should serve as the responsible person for ongoing compliance.
MoCRA: A New Era in the Regulation of Cosmetic Products
The Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act of 2022 (“MoCRA”) was signed into law on December 29, 2022. MoCRA expands the authority of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) to regulate cosmetics and serves as the most significant change to the regulation of cosmetics since the passage of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic (FD&C) Act in 1938. MoCRA is a seismic shift in the world of cosmetic regulation, bringing new authorities to the FDA that are similar to those that currently exist for food, drugs and medical devices, among other regulated products. MoCRA has sweeping implications for domestic and international cosmetics manufacturers that market products in the U.S.
New Hampshire Supreme Court Rejects Medical Monitoring Claim in PFAS Case
The Supreme Court of New Hampshire declined to recognize medical monitoring as a remedy or cause of action for plaintiffs who claim exposure to toxic substances. The court based its reasoning on New Hampshire common law and public policy, explaining that an increased risk of injury is insufficient to state a claim for medical monitoring as a remedy or cause of action. See Brown v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp., No. 2022-0132, 2023 WL 2577257 (N.H. Mar. 21, 2023).
NYCAL Court Upholds $15M Asbestos Verdict, Appeal Imminent after Denial of Joint Compound Defendant’s Post-Trial Motions
On March 16, 2023, the New York City Asbestos Litigation (NYCAL) Court denied Defendant Kaiser Gypsum’s post-trial motions following a $15M plaintiffs’ verdict in the matter of Munir Seen, New York Supreme Court, New York County, Index No. 190225/2018. Kaiser Gypsum moved for: 1) a judgment notwithstanding the verdict; 2) an order for a new trial; or, alternatively, 3) a remittitur of what Kaiser Gypsum called a clearly excessive verdict. All were denied.
Frequency, Regularity, Proximity: The Western District of Washington Requires More Than a Product’s Presence to Find Causation
On March 9, 2023, a federal judge granted summary judgment on causation to three manufacturers of asbestos-containing products in a maritime lawsuit arising from the death of Thomas Deem from mesothelioma. The judge held that Ms. Deem had failed to put on evidence sufficient to show that Decedent’s exposure to the products manufactured by three defendants—John Crane, Inc. (“JCI”), Crosby Valves, LLC, and the William Powell Company—was a substantial contributing factor to his developing mesothelioma. See Sherri L. Deem v. Air & Liquid Systems Corp., et al., No. 17-5965BHS (W.D. Wash. Mar. 9, 2023).