Legal Opinion

Coghill v. Bayer Corporation

District Court, E.D. Kentucky

Decided August 25, 2020No. 2:19-cv-00158Unknown

1Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY COVINGTON DIVISION CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:19-cv-158-WOB-CJS AMY LYNN COGHILL PLAINTIFF VS. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER BAYER CORPORATION, ET AL. DEFENDANTS This case arises from Plaintiff’s use of “Essure,” a contraception device, which she alleges caused her serious harm. Plaintiff alleges product liability claims against Essure’s manufacturers. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Defendants manufactured and sold “Essure,” 1 an FDA-approved Class III medical device which causes sterilization after implantation in the…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Lujan v. Defenders of WildlifeSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
  2. Medtronic, Inc. v. LohrSupreme Court of the United States · 1996
  3. Buckman Co. v. Plaintiffs' Legal CommitteeSupreme Court of the United States · 2001
  4. Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2008
  5. Bausch v. Stryker Corp.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2010

14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API