No Physical Injury, No Economic Damages, No Standing, No Class

Litigation attorney Eric Alexander published a blog for Drug & Device Law examining a class certification decision in Searcy v. Gilead Sciences Inc. involving tenofovir-based HIV medications. The post highlights the court's threshold focus on Article III standing and its common-sense conclusion that a proposed class cannot claim "overpayment" damages if many putative class members paid nothing out of pocket and the medications were acknowledged to have provided significant, life-saving value. Mr. Alexander also summarizes why the court found individualized issues predominated under Rule 23, including patient-specific prescribing decisions and proof of causation and loss, and explains how the plaintiffs' damages model fell short of tying classwide damages to their theory of liability.

READ: No Physical Injury, No Economic Damages, No Standing, No Class