Drug & Device Law

MAY 30, 2022

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.” 1981) (applying Virginia law), both of which involved vaccines.

Testimonials 59

Testimonials Doctors Production Laboratories 59

Drug & Device Law

MARCH 4, 2024

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.

Testimonials 52

Testimonials Production Vaccine Pharmaceuticals 52

Drug & Device Law

FEBRUARY 20, 2023

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.” Or does it suffice that a vaccine design has been approved in other countries? In Bruesewitz v. Wyeth LLC , 562 U.S.

FDA 59

FDA FDA Approval Testimonials Vaccine 59