Remove 2005 Remove Drugs Remove Regulations Remove Testimonials
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. Pediatr Ann.

Disease 52
article thumbnail

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

Drug & Device Law

2006) – a precedential holding that the same Pennsylvania rule barring strict liability claims against prescription drugs also applied to prescription medical devices − should not be followed because the plaintiffs in Creazzo were supposedly “pro se.” Medtronic, Inc. , but see Hahn v. Richter , 543 Pa. 558, 673 A.2d Tincher , 104 A.3d

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

article thumbnail

On Expert “Adulteration” and “Misbranding” Opinions

Drug & Device Law

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.

article thumbnail

Guest Post – Defendant Pitches A Shut Out And Hits A Home Run In Securing Summary Judgment In A Fosamax Case

Drug & Device Law

The court exercised its “gatekeeping” function under Rule 702 to assess whether the methodology underlying Plaintiff’s proffered expert testimony was “scientifically valid” and whether it could “be [properly] applied to the facts in issue.” Nor could Plaintiff fill that void by relying on expert testimony from other cases.