Remove 2001 Remove Marketing Remove Pharmaceuticals Remove Testimonials
article thumbnail

Another RICOdiculous Decision

Drug & Device Law

We’ve discussed recently how a federal statute intended to allow suits against international terrorists has been misapplied as allowing suits against pharmaceutical companies. Takeda Pharmaceuticals Co. , 341 (2001). Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. , 3d 1243 (9th Cir. Plaintiffs Legal Committee , 531 U.S.

article thumbnail

The FDA and Feasible Alternative Designs

Drug & Device Law

In product liability litigation generally, plaintiffs have been allowed to invent all kinds of “alternative” designs as long as some “expert” opines that the design (even if never before marketed) is “feasible.” For physicians to prescribe such a safer drug, it must reach the market. Wyeth Laboratories, Inc. , 2d 839, 851 (N.Y.

FDA 59
Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

article thumbnail

Unimpressed Learned Intermediaries Defeat Warning Causation

Drug & Device Law

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.” Plaintiff] has not identified any testimony from [the prescriber] that. . .

article thumbnail

Another Reason Why The FDA, Not Litigants, Approves Products

Drug & Device Law

Another of our posts quoted similar concerns raised by our clients in the pharmaceutical industry as the matter was being successfully appealed to the United States Supreme Court: The Fifth Circuit’s ruling threatens to stifle pharmaceutical innovation by disrupting industry’s reasonable investment-backed expectations. Buckman Co.

FDA 59
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

article thumbnail

No Expert Do-Overs

Drug & Device Law

In the middle was In re Lipitor (Atorvastatin Calcium) Marketing, Sales Practices. & Plaintiffs will not be heard to argue that they “could have shored up their cases by other means had they known their expert testimony would be found inadmissible.” Weisgram v. Marley Co. , 440, 455-56 (2000). Fru-Con Inc. , 3d 734 (7th Cir.