Medical and Biotechnology Attorneys

Our firm has years of first-hand experience managing difficult, high-exposure litigation in the biotech sector, including defense of pharmaceutical companies, medical device manufacturers, and their insurers in class action suits. We defend private and public life science corporations in tort litigation in Louisiana. Our attorneys are often approved as panel counsel and have assisted drug companies as they deal with warning and labeling issues. We also serve as local counsel for many large companies in this industry.

Our biotech team includes an attorney who is also a Registered Nurse with a Certificate in Corporate Healthcare Compliance. This unique perspective provides us with insight into a wide range of issues that may be the subject of litigation, whether we are helping with home health or physical therapy issues, surgical malpractice claims, defective pharmaceutical or medical device claim, or even contractual non-compete disputes involving former medical employees. We develop exit strategies at the beginning and take steps to aggressively pursue our clients’ goals in state and federal courts in Louisiana.

Experience Highlights

Dismissal Obtained When Plaintiff Failed to Prove Causation Between the Alleged Damages and an Alleged Failure to Warn.

Where we started:  The plaintiff, a dentist, alleged a manufacturer of dental blades should be responsible for injuries he caused his patient while using an incorrect blade. The dentist brought his claims against the manufacturer under the Louisiana Products Liability Act. Our roadmap:  Through discovery, we established that the dentist, a sophisticated user of the dental blades, failed to use the correct blade on his patient, which resulted in the injury. The blades included instructions for use when they were shipped, and the dentist admitted he did not read the instructions before use. For this reason, we argued that the dentist could not prove a causal connection between what he claimed was an inadequate warning or failure to warn, and the alleged damage. Resolution:  Keogh Cox prevailed on summary judgment because the plaintiff could not show the causal connection needed to support his claim and the blade was not defective.

Case Against a Medical Device Manufacturer Dismissed for Lack of Evidence.

Where we started:  A plaintiff filed suit against a number of physicians and the manufacturer of a medical device used during a back procedure. Citing the Louisiana Products Liability Act, the plaintiff asserted that our client, the manufacturer of the device, should be liable because the device was defective and unreasonably dangerous, which caused severe, life-altering damages. Our roadmap: Approximately 55 depositions of various parties and fact witnesses were taken because of the severity of the plaintiff’s claimed injuries. Through this complex discovery process, we obtained evidence to show that our client’s medical device was neither defective nor unreasonably dangerous. Resolution:  We filed a summary judgment on behalf of the device manufacturer to seek dismissal of the plaintiff’s claims against it. The court granted our motion because it agreed that the evidence did not show that the device was defective or unreasonably dangerous.

Keogh Cox Showed A Medical Device Used During a Gastrointestinal Procedure Was Not Defective or Unreasonably Dangerous. 

Where we started:  A plaintiff filed suit against a number of physicians and the manufacturer of a medical device used during a gastrointestinal procedure. In another claim brought under the Louisiana Products Liability Act, this plaintiff also alleged that the medical device was defective and unreasonably dangerous. Our roadmap:  At the outset of the litigation, Keogh Cox obtained documents that proved the device was tested immediately following the subject procedure and was found to be in proper working order. Additionally, evidence established that the equipment at issue was “state of the art.” The plaintiff also was unable to show an alternative design that would have averted the potential injury or that other causes for the alleged injury could not be ruled out. Resolution:  The Court granted Keogh Cox’s motion for summary judgment filed on behalf of the device manufacturer, resulting in a dismissal of the claims.


More Details about Biotechnology, Medical Technology and Life Sciences

Keogh Cox can handle all types and sizes of life science claims in Louisiana’s state and federal and state courts. We have experience helping clients facing problems involving injuries, insurance, medical devices, and pharmaceuticals, in areas including but not limited to:

  • Tort liability against manufacturers
  • Federal preemption
  • FDA regulations