Remove 2004 Remove Testimonials Remove Trials
article thumbnail

Let's Quit Sugar With Audiobook – Let's Quit Sugar

The Pharma Data

Testimonials are not necessarily representative of all of those who will use our products. Some of our testimonials are provided by customers who have received promotional offers in exchange for their participation. The testimonials displayed are given verbatim except for correction of grammatical or typing errors. De Araujo IE.

Disease 52
article thumbnail

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

Agency IQ

That law built upon several other previous laws, including the Public Health Threats and Emergencies Act of 2000, the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002 and the Project BioShield Act of 2004. The final rule will amend the administrative destruction provisions in 21 CFR 1.94

FDA 40
Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

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.

article thumbnail

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

Drug & Device Law

A fourth Justice concurred in the result, treating the issue of standards compliance in Sullivan as a matter of evidence, and holding that the lack of a sufficient trial record supporting the relevance of the specific standards at issue in Sullivan meant that the trial judge’s exclusion was not an abuse of discretion. Ethicon, Inc. ,

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

Doctors Without Burdens:  Another Mesh Court Goes Backwards

Drug & Device Law

317, 322 (1986), that summary judgment was mandated “against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party’s case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial.” 2004), where the Kentucky Supreme Court adopted the learned intermediary doctrine.

Doctors 59