Remove 2003 Remove Marketing Remove Testimonials
article thumbnail

Muscle Imbalances RevealedMuscle Imbalances Revealed

The Pharma Data

Here is where some of the health and fitness professionals are from that have been helped by MIR: If you want to see what other health and fitness professionals like you say about Muscle Imbalances Revealed, scroll down and read the testimonials. Clients who get results will rave about your skills and nothing beats word of mouth marketing.

article thumbnail

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

Drug & Device Law

2003) (“[C]ourts are to assist the plaintiff by allowing jurisdictional discovery unless the plaintiff’s claim is ‘clearly frivolous.’ ”).” Instead, it looked to Pennsylvania’s ultimate requirement of proof of expert testimony to prove a prescription drug (!!!) The cite for the latter conclusion was “ Toys “R” Us, Inc. 3d 446 (3d Cir.

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. Given this testimony, the plaintiffs could not “show that stronger manufacturer warnings would have altered the physician’s prescribing conduct.” Plaintiff] has not identified any testimony from [the prescriber] that. . .

article thumbnail

The FDA and Feasible Alternative Designs

Drug & Device Law

In product liability litigation generally, plaintiffs have been allowed to invent all kinds of “alternative” designs as long as some “expert” opines that the design (even if never before marketed) is “feasible.” 2003), aff’d , 810 N.Y.S.2d For physicians to prescribe such a safer drug, it must reach the market. 2d 506 (N.Y.

FDA 59
article thumbnail

No Expert Do-Overs

Drug & Device Law

In the middle was In re Lipitor (Atorvastatin Calcium) Marketing, Sales Practices. & 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.” Weisgram v. Marley Co. , 440, 455-56 (2000). Fru-Con Inc. , 3d 734 (7th Cir.