Drug & Device Law

JANUARY 15, 2024

at 526 (citation omitted). “[R]esearch and innovation in medical equipment and treatment would be inhibited.” Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. , 2019), analogously held that the standard for admission of expert testimony was “procedural” and therefore Pennsylvania’s Frye rule applied, not Texas’ stricter expert admissibility standard.

Compliance 52

Compliance Government FDA Compliance Production 52

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

JUNE 6, 2022

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

Testimonials 59

Testimonials Production Pharmaceuticals Treatment 59

Drug & Device Law

MAY 30, 2022

The prescriber’s] testimony, however, does not establish that he would have altered his prescribing conduct. That oncologists prescribing lifesaving standard-of-care treatment in the face of “aggressive cancer” are not impressed by a risk of – permanent hair loss – is not surprising. Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ,

Testimonials 59

Testimonials Doctors Production Laboratories 59