article thumbnail

Let's Quit Sugar With Audiobook – Let's Quit Sugar

The Pharma Data

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
article thumbnail

Another RICOdiculous Decision

Drug & Device Law

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.

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

article thumbnail

Zantac Chronicles – Concluding Chapters in the MDL

Drug & Device Law

“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).

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.

article thumbnail

Ruling On Motion To Dismiss In A Pennsylvania (Prescription) Device Case Takes Us Back

Drug & Device Law

After more than a month away at trial, we probably should not have picked a case that hit so close to home, so to speak. Instead, it looked to Pennsylvania’s ultimate requirement of proof of expert testimony to prove a prescription drug (!!!) Atrium Medical Corp. , — F. 3d –, 2022 WL 3357485 (E.D. Wyeth , 85 A.3d 3d 434 (Pa.

article thumbnail

Stupid Expert Tricks Redux

Drug & Device Law

Three years ago we published a lengthy post, “ Stupid Expert Tricks ,” detailing several of the other side’s egregious attempts at passing off junk science “experts” as the real thing, along with our side’s trials and tribulations during the course of unmasking these phonies. 2001) (Kilburn); and Wade-Greaux v. 3d 179, 181-87 (D.

article thumbnail

The FDA and Feasible Alternative Designs

Drug & Device Law

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