SEDGWICK ATTORNEY PROFILE
Hall R. Marston Special Counsel, Los Angeles, California
Appellate Practice Products Liability Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Intellectual Property Healthcare Employment and Labor Law
HALL R. MARSTON
Current Scope of Practice
With over 30 years of front-line litigation experience, Hall R. Marston brings a deep and diverse range of skills to the service of the firm’s clients. With more than 22 jury trials, 100 plus appellate matters, and over 30 published opinions which have molded significant elements of the nation’s jurisprudence, Mr. Marston’s practice encompasses a broad sweep of general civil litigation, including products liability, professional liability and healthcare, employment, complex business litigation, corporate and partnership disputes, surety and insurance coverage disputes. As a Certified Appellate Specialist, by the California State Bar’s Board of Legal Specialization, Mr. Marston continues to help shape decisional authority in a wide array of practice areas.
Products Liability Experience
From the outset of his practice to the present, Mr. Marston has had the privilege of participating in some of the major episodes of mass tort litigation regarding pharmaceuticals and medical devices. He has represented defendants in the diethylstilbestrol (“DES”), Dalkon Shield, DPT and polio vaccine, TMJ Teflon implant, Bendectin, and breast implant litigation. In this field, Mr. Marston has had perhaps the most impact in developing the law before the nation’s appellate courts in this challenging environment for manufacturers and distributors:
Daubert v. Merrell Dow: Mr. Marston represented the manufacturer of Bendectin, the only FDA approved therapy for morning sickness, in the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case that established the trial court’s obligation to act as a “gatekeeper” to exclude unreliable expert testimony.
Sindell v. Abbott Laboratories: The DES litigation posed an intriguing challenge to the California Supreme Court concerning under what circumstances would the children of women who could not identify the manufacturer of an anti-miscarriage therapy be allowed to proceed in the pursuit of a products liability claim. Mr. Marston represented the manufacturer who took the lead in advocating the industry’s position regarding “market-share liability,” and this opinion is the landmark on the subject.