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

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

2003), aff’d , 810 N.Y.S.2d 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. His testimony is thus irrelevant and inadmissible. 2d 839, 851 (N.Y. 2006), app.

FDA 59

FDA FDA Approval Testimonials Vaccine 59

Drug & Device Law

AUGUST 26, 2022

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. 2003) (“[C]ourts are to assist the plaintiff by allowing jurisdictional discovery unless the plaintiff’s claim is ‘clearly frivolous.’ ”).” Atrium Medical Corp. , — F. 3d –, 2022 WL 3357485 (E.D. Step Two, S.A. ,

Production 59

Production Testimonials Marketing Trials 59

Drug & Device Law

APRIL 18, 2022

The trial court granted summary judgment based on evidence that the implanting surgeon “would have used the clips in the surgery even if he had received such a warning” and thus plaintiff “could not prove the cause element of his claims.” 2003 WL 1785795, at *13 (D. 3d 203 (5th Cir. 2008); Herzog v. Arthrocare Corp.

Testimonials 59

Testimonials Production FDA Approval FDA 59

Drug & Device Law

MARCH 28, 2022

The Federal Rules of Evidence do not permit an expert to render conclusions of law, because such testimony cannot properly assist the jury in understanding the evidence or determining a fact in issue. Rather, expert testimony couched as legal conclusion merely tells the jury which result to reach. 2003 WL 22416000, at *4 (E.D.

Testimonials 59

Testimonials FDA Regulations Production 59