Remove 2004 Remove Pharmaceuticals Remove Testimonials
article thumbnail

Analysis Life Sciences Thank You Everything the FDA is planning to do in Q3 2023

Agency IQ

A big nitrosamine deadline approaches : Unless you’ve been hiding under a rock for the last few years, you’ve probably heard about major issues that the pharmaceutical industry has been having with nitrosamine contamination. But despite the law’s age, it is not yet fully operational.

FDA 40
article thumbnail

No Expert Do-Overs

Drug & Device Law

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.

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

article thumbnail

Dealing with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s Non-Decision on Standards Compliance Evidence

Drug & Device Law

2004) (pre- Tincher product liability case; “assessment of the dangers of unfair prejudice and confusion of the issues are procedural matters that govern in a federal court notwithstanding a state policy to the contrary”); Kelly v. Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. , at 354 (citations omitted). Blaw-Knox , 360 F.3d 3d 426, 431 n.3

article thumbnail

New Fed. R. Evid. 702 – Use This Stuff To Update Your Briefs

Drug & Device Law

Testimony by expert witnesses. First, the Committee found it necessary to “emphasize” both the court’s role and the burden of proof. “[E]xpert testimony may not be admitted unless the proponent demonstrates to the court that it is more likely than not that the proffered testimony meets the admissibility requirements set forth in the rule.”

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

Confident Learned Intermediaries Defeat Warning Causation

Drug & Device Law

Thus a confident learned intermediary’s testimony will defeat causation as a matter of law by stating that, notwithstanding a poor result, the treatment provided was standard of care, and even in hindsight they would not do anything different. Confident learned intermediaries stand by their medical decisions. Medrano , 28 S.W.3d

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. . .