Beale v. Biomet, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• anticipating that the Florida Supreme Court would not adopt the DTC exception because, in the then-eight years since Perez, “no other state has followed suit”
• rejecting FDUTPA claim where “the literature makes clear those very things that Plaintiffs 10 || complain were deceiving.”
• collecting cases in which sales representatives “made the drug appear much safer than it actually was”
• finding plaintiffs had not presented any evidence to suggest physician “was influenced by Biomet in any fashion in his decisions to use the device in his patients” when, inter alia, physician testified (1
• discussing fact that in Salmon and Incollingo, “[t]he physicians prescribing the drug testified that they were influenced by the representations of the detail men, and prescribed the drug much more freely than they would have without those representations”
• applying the learned intermediary doctrine to medical devices

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).