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

2003), aff’d , 810 N.Y.S.2d 7, 2022), which addressed the same question in the context of the admissibility of expert testimony. Another decision in the same case reached the same result: In the United States, the FDA regulates the sale of medical devices. His testimony is thus irrelevant and inadmissible. 2d 506 (N.Y.

FDA 59

FDA FDA Approval Testimonials Vaccine 59

Drug & Device Law

MARCH 28, 2022

A lot of the discussion in Tsao was case specific because the purported expert opinions at issue were among the most ridiculous we’ve ever seen – directly contrary to the controlling FDA regulations applicable to the particular drug. Rather, expert testimony couched as legal conclusion merely tells the jury which result to reach.

Testimonials 59

Testimonials FDA Regulations Production 59