article thumbnail

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

Drug & Device Law

The court refused to apply strict liability, holding “that even if [defendants] could be shown to have ‘marketed’ the prosthesis, strict liability does not apply.” 2d 439 (2005): [A]t the time this [product] was sold, it complied with all safety standards. Central Medical Health Services, Inc. , 2d 521 (Pa. Ethicon, Inc. ,

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. . .

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

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

Pro Se Plaintiff Tries and Fails To Plead Claims For Failure To Withdraw And Failure To Warn

Drug & Device Law

In two of these cases, our client won summary judgment at the trial court level and an appellate court ended up creating a new cause of action to accommodate the plaintiff’s theory (and lack of helpful testimony from the prescribing physician). There was a similar endorsement in 2018.

article thumbnail

No Expert Do-Overs

Drug & Device Law

In the middle was In re Lipitor (Atorvastatin Calcium) Marketing, Sales Practices. & 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.” 49, 55 (2005). Weisgram v. Marley Co. , 440, 455-56 (2000). Fru-Con Inc. ,

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

Though the Redbirds are having a rough season, few sports franchises have enjoyed such sustained periods of excellence and perennial playoff contention , a laudable accomplishment for a midsized market team without the seemingly bottomless pockets of the New York and Los Angeles teams. at *3 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).