The Pharma Data

MAY 13, 2021

You should not use the information on this site for diagnosis or treatment of any health problem or for prescription of any medication or other treatment. Testimonials are not necessarily representative of all of those who will use our products. A survey of the opinions of obesity experts on the causes and treatment of obesity.

Disease 52

Disease Production Testimonials Science 52

Drug & Device Law

AUGUST 24, 2023

The court exercised its “gatekeeping” function under Rule 702 to assess whether the methodology underlying Plaintiff’s proffered expert testimony was “scientifically valid” and whether it could “be [properly] applied to the facts in issue.” at *3 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). at *8-10. at *14 (citation omitted).

Testimonials 52

Testimonials International Treatment Production 52

Drug & Device Law

JULY 24, 2023

341 (2001). Yet what the plaintiffs were claiming is that, despite Actos’ undisputed effectiveness as a diabetes treatment, no TPP in the country would have purchased it for that purpose because of the 3/10,000 bladder cancer increased risk. Plaintiffs Legal Committee , 531 U.S. You can see where this is going. PATDC82 I , 943 F.3d

Testimonials 52

Testimonials Pharmacy FDA Doctors 52

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). 7, 2022), which addressed the same question in the context of the admissibility of expert testimony. Another recent and thorough treatment of this subject is found in Robinson v. His testimony is thus irrelevant and inadmissible. Ethicon, Inc. ,

FDA 59

FDA FDA Approval Testimonials Vaccine 59

Drug & Device Law

DECEMBER 9, 2022

2001), aff’d sub nom. The court found that there was no question of fact for the jury because the testimony “[did] not establish that if that warning had been provided, [the doctor] would not have prescribed [the product] or would have told Mr. Motus something other than what he did say. Pfizer, Inc ,196 F. 2d 984 (C.D. Pfizer Inc.

Testimonials 64

Testimonials Doctors Production Treatment 64

Drug & Device Law

JUNE 6, 2022

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

Testimonials 59

Testimonials Production Pharmaceuticals Drugs 59