The Pennsylvania Superior Court has restored the $28 million in punitive damages a jury awarded to a plaintiff who said drug makers Wyeth and Pharmacia & Upjohn failed to warn her doctor of the risks of breast cancer from using hormonal drugs. The trial judge had reduced the award to $1 million.

A nuclear services company employee who contracted cancer and has been ordered by his doctor to avoid working in radiological areas cannot sustain an American with Disabilities Act claim because there is no position with the company that does not require exposure to radiation, a New York federal judge has ruled.

A woman who, contrary to her religious beliefs, received a life-saving blood transfusion after having a baby has no medical malpractice claim against the hospital where she received the blood or the doctor who treated her, a New York state judge has ruled.

An order from a Georgia judge throwing out an expert witness and the asbestos suit his testimony was going to support have defense attorneys celebrating and plaintiffs lawyers bearing down for an appellate battle. The judge barred the testimony of a pathologist, saying that the doctor’s opinion that any asbestos exposure causes injury “is not practically testable and has not been tested.” Lawyers who defend companies from asbestos cases predicted the decision could influence other judges around the state.

Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court has ruled that two plaintiffs alleging that asbestos exposure caused their illnesses cannot have their cases dismissed on summary judgment simply because their doctor opined their illnesses are attributable both to asbestos exposure and to smoking. According to the plaintiffs’ attorney, the court’s ruling could impact many cases beyond asbestos litigation by setting the standard of review of summary judgments as a de novo review, rather than an abuse of discretion standard of review.