The Pharma Data
MAY 13, 2021
Testimonials are not necessarily representative of all of those who will use our products. Some of our testimonials are provided by customers who have received promotional offers in exchange for their participation. The testimonials displayed are given verbatim except for correction of grammatical or typing errors. Neuroreport.
Drug & Device Law
DECEMBER 27, 2022
Reliance on “animal data” – another notorious and frequent error common in unreliable expert testimony. Relying on the grossly excessive ranitidine exposure lab tests previously excluded for their bizarre results and shoddy methodologies. Peculiar methodology (not results) that is not “generally accepted.”. at *167 (quoting Glastetter v.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Drug & Device Law
AUGUST 26, 2022
Instead, it looked to Pennsylvania’s ultimate requirement of proof of expert testimony to prove a prescription drug (!!!) Without deciding whether 9(b)’s heightened pleading standards apply to a negligent misrepresentation claim, the court cited 2001 and 2007 Eastern District of Pennsylvania cases for a “degree of specificity” standard.
Drug & Device Law
FEBRUARY 11, 2024
19, 2021) (admitting and excluding Studnicki testimony); Whole Woman’s Health Alliance v. 341, 351 (2001) (rejecting the “sort of litigation [that] would exert an extraneous pull on the scheme established by Congress”). See , e.g. , Whole Woman’s Health Alliance v. Rokita , 2021 WL 650589, at *12-17 (Mag. Buckman Co.
Drug & Device Law
NOVEMBER 28, 2022
2001) (Kilburn); and Wade-Greaux v. Because the facts of [plaintiff’s] case paralleled the description of [the pseudonym] in Dr. Moline’s congressional testimony, [defendant] suspected that [she] was one of the thirty-three anonymous individuals that the article had studied. I-Flow Corp. , 2d 1092, 1119-25 (D. 3d 244 (6th Cir.
Drug & Device Law
FEBRUARY 20, 2023
151, 163-68 (2001)) (lengthy discussion of FDA regulatory process omitted). 7, 2022), which addressed the same question in the context of the admissibility of expert testimony. Therefore, Davis excluded as “not relevant” expert testimony about non-FDA-approved alternatives. His testimony is thus irrelevant and inadmissible.
Drug & Device Law
JULY 24, 2023
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. It is not clear that [defendants] will − or even can − avail themselves of a TPP-by-TPP causation defense using doctor-by-doctor testimony.
Expert insights. Personalized for you.
52 
Let's personalize your content