On February 8, 2010, the Court of Appeal (Second Appellate District, Division Four) issued a modification order adding a new, three-page section to its opinion in Steroid Hormone Product Cases, ___ Cal.App.4th ___ (Jan. 21, 2010). As my post on the original opinion explained, this panel correctly interpreted Tobacco II (in a manner directly contrary to the Court of Appeal in Cohen).
Evidently, a rehearing petition was filed on February 2, urging the Court to follow Cohen and Vioxx. The quickly-issued modification order (which also denied rehearing with no change in the judgment) makes the panel's disagreement with those opinions clear. It is reasonable to assume that a review petition will be filed.
In other appellate activity of note, a rehearing petition was filed on January 22 and denied on January 26 in the Weinstat case (see this post). Again, a petition for review would not be surprising. And we still await opinions in the two "grant and hold" cases, Pfizer and McAdams.
UPDATE: Many thanks to the blog reader who wrote to advise that a petition for review was already filed last Thursday, February 11, in the Weinstat case. Weinstat v. Dentsply Int'l., no. S180179. I have also received copies of the petition for review and the rehearing petition, which will go up in a later post.