Circle’s policies, the degree of informed consent received from each patient, any associated benefit, and, ultimately, whether each proposed Plaintiff received medically unnecessary treatments. See In re St. Jude Med., Inc., 522 F.3d 836, 840 (8th Cir.2008) (discussing a claim for consumer fraud and holding that the need for “plaintiff-by-plaintiff determinations means that common issues will not predominate”). Likewise, in In re Baycol Products Litigation, 265 F.R.D. 453, 457-58 (D.Minn.2008), the court denied class certification on an unjust enrichment claim noting that, in order to succeed on the claim, “plaintiffs would have to demonstrate that they were either injured by [defendants’ product], or that [defendants’ product] did not provide them any health benefits.” See also id. (<HOLDING>). Plaintiffs face the same barrier in the
holding that the alj is free to reject the opinion of any physician when the evidence supports a contrary conclusion holding that the mother can be deemed to have waived the physicianpatient privilege only with respect to the medical history and records pertaining to the period when the plaintiff was in utero during which time there could be no severance of the infants prenatal history from his mothers medical history holding that wlhether any particular cause or any individual actors conduct is sufficiently substantial to warrant the imposition of liability depends properly on a consideration of the whole holding that a statutory presumption is a rule of law requiring a trier of fact to reach a particular conclusion in the absence of evidence to the contrary holding that the evidence supports the conclusion that individual issues of fact predominate with respect to whether defendants product benefitted or harmed any particular person since it would require consideration of each particular plaintiffs medical history