article thumbnail

Another RICOdiculous Decision

Drug & Device Law

341 (2001). This time-tested type of evidence is mostly absent from the analysis in PATDC82 II – as in Neurontin , the only actual prescriber testimony belied plaintiffs’ position. Without any consideration of what actual doctors did for actual patients with actual diseases, all that was proven was the maxim “garbage in, garbage out.”

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

Doctors Who Perform Abortions: Their Characteristics & Patterns of Holding & Using Hospital Privileges,” 6. 9 (“Longitudinal” for the proposition that “adverse events from chemical abortion drugs can overwhelm the medical system and place ‘enormous pressure and stress’ on doctors during emergencies and complications”), at *14 n.22

FDA 59
article thumbnail

Unimpressed Learned Intermediaries Defeat Warning Causation

Drug & Device Law

The law presumes that licensed doctors know what they are doing. The prescriber’s] testimony, however, does not establish that he would have altered his prescribing conduct. Given this testimony, the plaintiffs could not “show that stronger manufacturer warnings would have altered the physician’s prescribing conduct.”

article thumbnail

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

Drug & Device Law

And the court agreed, finding that “the undisputed facts reflected that [the doctor] testified she read the IFU, relied on the warnings provided by [the defendant], believed she had a comprehensive informed consent process, and would have passed on a warning about the risk of severe and chronic pain to patients. 2001), aff’d sub nom.