|
|
|
As a pharmaceutical products liability litigation attorney and shareholder at Baum Hedlund Aristei& Goldman, I focus my practice on Pharmaceutical Drug Products Liability, Personal Injury and Wrongful Death Cases, and Complex and Multi-District Litigation. I also represent whistleblowers in qui tam actions.
Bijan has successfully argued against preemption in numerous cases, including Mason v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 596 F.3d. 387 (7th Cir. 2010), Tucker v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 596 F.Supp.2d 1225 (S.D.Ind. 2008); Knipe v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 583 F.Supp.2d 553 (E.D.Pa 2008); Turek v. SmithKline Beecham, Case No. 3596 (Pa. Ct.Com.Pl. March 18, 2009); Forst v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 639 F.Supp.2d 948 (E.D.Wis. 2009); Dorsett v. Sandoz, Inc., 699 F.Supp.2d 1142 (C.D.Cal. 2010); Cabana v. Stryker Biotech, LLC et al., Case No. BC465313, 2012 WL 3729227 (Cal.Super. Ct., August 20, 2012) (holding that injured patient's state law claims arising out of medical device manufacturer's off-label promotion of its bone morphogenetic protein [Infuse] were not expressly nor impliedly preempted by federal law). He has also co-authored amicus briefs in support of the respondents in the Supreme Court's landmark cases Wyeth v. Levine, 129 S.Ct. 1187 (2009); Pliva v. Mensing, 131 S.Ct. 2567 (2011); and Cabana v. Stryker Biotech, LLC et al., Case No. BC465313, 2012 WL 3729227 (Cal.Super. Ct., August 20, 2012) (holding that injured patient's state law claims arising out of medical device manufacturer's off-label promotion of its bone morphogenetic protein [Infuse] were not expressly nor impliedly preempted by federal law).