Remove 2001 Remove Doctors Remove Drugs Remove Testimonials
article thumbnail

Another RICOdiculous Decision

Drug & Device Law

2019) (“ PATDC82 I ”), because the third-party payor (“TPP”) plaintiffs were allowed to misuse RICO to pursue what was essentially a garden variety inadequate warning case – that the drug Actos increased the risk of bladder cancer. 341 (2001). Takeda Pharmaceuticals Co. , 3d 1243 (9th Cir. Indeed, that’s what the label says.

article thumbnail

Confident Learned Intermediaries Defeat Warning Causation

Drug & Device Law

Thus a confident learned intermediary’s testimony will defeat causation as a matter of law by stating that, notwithstanding a poor result, the treatment provided was standard of care, and even in hindsight they would not do anything different. Confident learned intermediaries stand by their medical decisions. Medrano , 28 S.W.3d

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

article thumbnail

Another Reason Why The FDA, Not Litigants, Approves Products

Drug & Device Law

Considering the rigorousness of this process and the due process interests of drug sponsors, Congress also mandated by statute a process for withdrawal or suspension of an FDA approval decision − a process the Fifth Circuit circumvented. 19, 2021) (admitting and excluding Studnicki testimony); Whole Woman’s Health Alliance v.

FDA 59
article thumbnail

Unimpressed Learned Intermediaries Defeat Warning Causation

Drug & Device Law

The law presumes that licensed doctors know what they are doing. That means that prescribers can make risk/benefit analyses to determine what prescription drugs or medical devices their patients need. The prescriber’s] testimony, however, does not establish that he would have altered his prescribing conduct. 2d 349 (2d Cir.

article thumbnail

Lovely Warnings Causation (and More) Mesh Decision from the Central District of California

Drug & Device Law

This is the doctrine: to prevail on a failure-to-warn claim in a prescription drug or medical device case, a plaintiff must prove both that the products warnings were inadequate and that the inadequate warning proximately caused the plaintiff’s injuries. 2001), aff’d sub nom. In Brennan v. Johnson & Johnson, et al., Pfizer Inc.