The Pharma Data
MAY 13, 2021
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. N Engl J Med.
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.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Drug & Device Law
JANUARY 15, 2024
It is not evidence of the underlying attributes of the product that make it compliant with regulations or standards, which is presumably admissible subject to the ordinary Rules of Evidence. We] “borrow” the OSHA regulation for use as evidence of the standard of care owed to plaintiff. Sullivan , OAJC, 2023 WL 8859656, at *11.
Drug & Device Law
MARCH 28, 2022
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.
Drug & Device Law
AUGUST 24, 2023
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.
Expert insights. Personalized for you.
52 
Let's personalize your content