Heather M.
Howard

Member of national trial counsel team representing an international medical device company in litigation in federal and state cases across the country, and formerly in a multidistrict litigation (MDL), relating to injuries allegedly caused by the company’s female pelvic mesh devices.

Member of national coordinating and trial counsel team representing GlaxoSmithKline in nationwide product liability litigation concerning allegations of a link between the company’s antidepressant and an increased risk of suicidality in adult and pediatric patients, as well as an increased risk of certain congenital defects. Ms. Howard’s experience includes trial preparation and participating at trial; deposing plaintiffs and treating physicians; participating in expert discovery, including depositions; preparing expert witnesses and corporate representatives for deposition and trial; briefing and arguing dispositive, procedural, and Daubert motions; coordinating discovery; and briefing appeals. Ms. Howard’s involvement has included federal and state cases in trial and appellate courts across the country.

Ms. Howard’s achievements in this litigation include:

• Serving on the trial team for the first "innovator liability" prescription medication case to go to trial, Dolin v. GlaxoSmithKline. Ms. Howard was also part of the team that successfully handled the case on appeal. Dolin v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC, 901 F.3d 803 (7th Cir. 2018), cert. denied, 139 S. Ct. 2636 (2019), aff'd on further appeal, 951 F.3d 882 (7th Cir. 2020).

• Obtaining summary judgment in Connecticut federal court in a case alleging that maternal Paxil use caused congenital heart defect, on two separate grounds: first, because of a lack of admissible expert testimony after the Court excluded plaintiffs' case-specific expert; and second, because plaintiffs' claims were time-barred. K.E. v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC, No. 3:14-cv-1294(VAB), 2017 WL 440242 (D. Conn. Feb. 1, 2017).

• Obtaining summary judgment in New Mexico state court based on lack of causation for an injury allegedly caused by a generic competitor’s medication; and successfully defending the appeal of that judgment to the New Mexico Court of Appeals. Silva v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., No. 31,276, 2013 WL 4516160 (N.M. Ct. App. Feb. 7, 2013).

• Obtaining summary judgment in Florida state court based on lack of causation under Florida’s learned intermediary doctrine, and separately on the plaintiffs’ claims of manufacturing defect, and successfully defending the appeal of that judgment to Florida’s Second District Court of Appeal. Layton v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 137 So. 3d 384 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014).

• Obtaining summary judgment in Louisiana federal court on alternative grounds of the learned intermediary doctrine and judicial estoppel; and successfully defending the appeal of that judgment to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Allgood v. SmithKline Beecham Corp. d/b/a GlaxoSmithKline, No. 06-3506, 2008 WL 483574 (E.D. La. Feb. 20, 2008), aff’d, 314 F. App’x 701 (5th Cir. 2009).

• Obtaining summary judgment in California federal court on statute of limitations grounds; and defending the appeal of that judgment to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Schuetze v. GlaxoSmithKline, 384 F. App’x 610 (9th Cir. 2010).

• Obtaining summary judgment in Louisiana federal court based on the plaintiff’s failure to timely disclose expert testimony; and successfully defending the appeal of that judgment to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Autery v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., No. 05-0982, 2011 WL 1812793 (W.D. La. Apr. 12, 2011), adopted by 2011 WL 1828343 (W.D. La. May 12, 2011), aff’d, 496 F. App’x 388 (5th Cir. 2012).

• Obtaining summary judgment in Alabama state court on statute of limitations grounds; and defending the appeal of that judgment. Brown v. GlaxoSmithKline, 51 So. 3d 1128 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009).

• Member of a team that successfully defeated certification of a nationwide class.

Representing Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. in multidistrict litigation in New Jersey federal court involving allegations of injuries from use of the company’s osteoporosis medication. Ms. Howard was a member of the trial team in the first “bellwether” trial, Glynn v. Merck, in which the jury returned a full defense verdict, after which the court granted judgment based on federal preemption. Glynn v. Merck & Co., 915 F. Supp. 2d 695 (D.N.J. 2013).

Representing a specialty retailer in a South Carolina federal personal injury action involving allegations of burn injuries resulting from the use of fire pot and gel fuel products.

Representing the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, American Tort Reform Association, and the National Association of Manufacturers as amicus curiae in Cerveny v. Aventis, in which the Tenth Circuit affirmed in part the federal district court’s grant of summary judgment for Aventis. Cerveny v. Aventis, Inc., 855 F.3d 1091 (10th Cir. 2017), aff'd, 783 F. App'x 804 (10th Cir. 2019).

Representing the Products Liability Advisory Council, Inc. (PLAC) as amicus curiae in Wyeth v. Weeks, in which the Supreme Court of Alabama addressed whether a brand-name drug manufacturer can be held liable to consumers of generic drug products. Following the court’s opinion, Ms. Howard again represented PLAC as amicus curiae in support of Wyeth’s application for rehearing.

Representing Purdue Pharma as part of a King & Spalding team serving as national coordinating co-counsel and trial counsel in nationwide product liability and consumer fraud litigation involving the company’s pain medication. Ms. Howard’s achievements in this litigation include drafting a successful motion to dismiss.

Drafting a successful motion for protective order in response to a challenge to a pharmaceutical manufacturer’s confidential documents.