Stahl v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that an element of an LPLA claim is “that the defendant is a manufacturer of the product”
• stating that a plaintiff must prove only “that the defendant is a manufacturer of the product”
• noting that Louisiana follows the “learned intermediary doctrine,” in which a manufacturer need only warn the patient’s physician, not the patient himself, of the device’s potential harm
• noting that while claims under the LPLA are based on principles of strict liability, negligence, or warranty, these theories are not independently “available as theories of recovery against a manufacturer.”
• noting that while claims under the LPLA ate based on principles of strict liability, negligence, or wattanty, these theories ate not independently “available as theories of recovery against a manufacturer.”
• denying an intentional tort claim in a pharmaceutical product liability claim because it was not an available remedy under the LPLA

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).