Remove 2001 Remove Pharmaceuticals Remove Testimonials Remove Treatment
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. PATDC82 I , 943 F.3d

article thumbnail

50-State Survey of State Court Decisions Supporting Expert-Related Judicial Gatekeeping

Drug & Device Law

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.

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

article thumbnail

The FDA and Feasible Alternative Designs

Drug & Device Law

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. Another recent and thorough treatment of this subject is found in Robinson v.

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

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. That oncologists prescribing lifesaving standard-of-care treatment in the face of “aggressive cancer” are not impressed by a risk of – permanent hair loss – is not surprising. Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ,