Drug & Device Law

MARCH 4, 2024

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.” His inability to produce admissible expert testimony is due to his own actions, namely the failure of his proposed experts to test their alternatives. Weisgram v.

Testimonials 52

Testimonials Production Vaccine Pharmaceuticals 52

Drug & Device Law

FEBRUARY 11, 2024

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

FDA Production FDA Approval Regulations 59

Drug & Device Law

JULY 24, 2023

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.

Testimonials 52

Testimonials Pharmacy FDA Doctors 52

Drug & Device Law

JUNE 13, 2023

702 was (at the time – more on this below) identical to the Federal Rule, the Court stated “we believe that Daubert is directed at situations where the scientific or technical basis for the expert testimony cannot be judicially noticed and a hearing must be held to determine its reliability. CSX Transportation, Inc. , 2d 275, 305 (W.

Testimonials 59

Testimonials Science Trials International 59

Drug & Device Law

JUNE 1, 2023

We think that they can, and for a state (like Pennsylvania and a number of others) that still follows the “ Frye ” standard looking to the “general acceptance” of expert testimony as the touchstone to admissibility, a Rule 702 state-law equivalent might look something like this: Rule 702. E.g. , Walsh v. BASF Corp. , 3d 446, 461 (Pa.

Testimonials 59

Testimonials Trials Science Government 59

Drug & Device Law

FEBRUARY 20, 2023

151, 163-68 (2001)) (lengthy discussion of FDA regulatory process omitted). The court in Wolfe refused to impose a negligence duty on the defendant pharmaceutical company to develop and obtain FDA approval of the plaintiff’s non-FDA-approved alternative. His testimony is thus irrelevant and inadmissible. Ethicon, Inc. ,

FDA 59

FDA FDA Approval Testimonials Vaccine 59

Drug & Device Law

DECEMBER 27, 2022

Reliance on “animal data” – another notorious and frequent error common in unreliable expert testimony. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. , Relying on the grossly excessive ranitidine exposure lab tests previously excluded for their bizarre results and shoddy methodologies. at *167 (quoting Glastetter v. 3d 986, 991 (8th Cir.

Laboratories 59

Laboratories FDA Production International 59