Intra-articular hyaluronans: the treatment of knee pain in osteoarthritis

China - Shanghai, Ballet dancerColorVolume 63, Page

Intra-articular hyaluronans: the treatment of knee pain in osteoarthritis

The etiology of pain in osteoarthritis is multifactoral, and includes mechanical and inflammatory processes. Intra-articular injections of hyaluronans (HAs) are indicated when non-pharmacological and simple analgesics have failed to relieve symptoms. The HAs appear to reduce pain by restoring both mechanical and biomechanical homeostasis in the joint. There are five FDA-approved injectable preparations of HAs: Hyalgan®, Synvisc®, Supartz®, Orthovisc® and Euflexxa®. They all appear to relieve pain from 4 to 14 weeks after injection and may have disease-modification properties. Although several randomized controlled trials have established the efficacy of this treatment modality, additional high quality randomized control studies with appropriate comparison are still required to clearly define the role of intra-articular HA injections in the treatment of osteoarthritis

Cleaning up Lake River

A casebook favorite for exploring the liquidated damage-penalty clause distinction is Lake River v. Carborundum in which a minimum quantity clause was found to be a penalty clause. In this paper I argue that the case was framed improperly. The contract was for the provision of a service—setting aside capacity—which was valuable to the buyer and costly to provide for the seller. The primary purpose of the minimum quantity clause was the pricing of that service. The case raises a significant damages issue: if there is an anticipatory repudiation of a contract that is take-or-pay or has a stipulated damage clause, should the promisee's ability to mitigate be taken into account when reckoning damages

Desperately Seeking Consideration: The Unfortunate Impact of U.C.C. Section 2-306 on Contract Interpretation

In Section 2-306, the Uniform Commercial Code\u27s drafters intended to assure that two classes of agreements would be enforceable, even though they might appear on their face to be illusory. Variable quantity (output and requirements) contracts were buttressed by reading in a good faith standard (§ 2-306(1)) and exclusive dealing contracts were made enforceable by reading in a best efforts standard (§ 2-306(2)). This was a big mistake. In this paper I show how these two fixes create problems for interpreting contracts. I use two well-known cases, Feld v. Henry S. Levy & Sons, Inc. and Wood v. Lucy, to illustrate the point

A Crib Sheet for Contracts Profs

Over the last two decades I have been digging into the facts on a number of contracts cases, many of them featured in casebooks. I have collected the material in two books; one appeared in 2006 and the other is hot off the presses. This brief paper provides a roadmap for professors who might want more depth on the cases than is provided in the decisions or the casebooks. A recurring theme in the two books is that parties designing their contractual relationships must deal with change. This shows up in the manner in which they price the option to terminate (including the remedy for breach) and in the excuse cases. I include tables showing the incidence of my case analyses in three of the major casebooks. For example, 19 major cases in both the Scott-Kraus and Farnsworth, et al books are covered. As a bonus I include brief analyses of two cases not discussed in my books