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.

Disease 52

Disease Production Testimonials Science 52

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

JULY 24, 2023

341 (2001). Second, as for superiority, PATDC82 II admitted that a class trial would face “enormous logistical hurdles,” but nonetheless found a nationwide class action “superior.” Thus, “[o]ne supposed ‘nightmare’ trial is preferable to many hundreds of shorter ones.” 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. 2013) (citation and quotation marks omitted). “We.

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). That the product had been approved in “other countries” could not create a triable issue of fact because, even for other uses that the FDA eventually allowed, the necessary clinical trials had not been completed in 2010. Ethicon, Inc. , See Davis v.

FDA 59

FDA FDA Approval Testimonials Vaccine 59

Drug & Device Law

DECEMBER 27, 2022

“When an expert purports to apply principles and methods in accordance with professional standards, and yet reaches a conclusion that other experts in the field would not reach, the trial court may fairly suspect that the principles and methods have not been faithfully applied.” at 83 (citation and quotation marks omitted).

Laboratories 59

Laboratories FDA Production International 59