Drug & Device Law

MAY 30, 2022

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.” 1981) (applying Virginia law), both of which involved vaccines.

Testimonials 59

Testimonials Doctors Production Laboratories 59

Drug & Device Law

FEBRUARY 20, 2023

For several decades – starting with plaintiffs’ pre-Vaccine Act attacks on vaccine designs – courts have addressed FDA approval as a component of “feasibility” in states that impose this limitation on design defect claims. Or does it suffice that a vaccine design has been approved in other countries? In Bruesewitz v.

FDA 59

FDA FDA Approval Testimonials Vaccine 59

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