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. De Araujo IE.

Disease 52

Disease Production Testimonials Science 52

Agency IQ

JULY 28, 2023

A big legislative question about PAHPA Reauthorization : The Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Act (PAHPA) was originally passed in 2006. to provide notice and an opportunity for owners or consignees of the drug to appear before the Agency and introduce testimony prior to the destruction of their drug.

FDA 40

FDA Science Biosimilars Regulations 40

Codon

JUNE 2, 2024

This discordance, or lack of “ predictive validity ” when translating results across organismal boundaries, is perhaps most harmful in the biomedical field; despite extensive testing in mouse models, only 10 percent of drugs that make it to clinical trials ever make it to market. Adapted from Yoshiki and Moriwaki (2006).

Laboratories 140

Laboratories Research Disease Science 140

Drug & Device Law

JANUARY 15, 2024

and [defendants’] response thereto, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by disallowing the evidence. In my view, the complicated legal issue presented in this appeal is unfortunately not resolvable because of the undeveloped evidentiary record and undirected advocacy in the trial court. Medtronic, Inc. , Ethicon, Inc. ,

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

APRIL 29, 2022

The trial court denied the motion. On appeal, the intermediate appellate court affirmed, holding that “[the geologist’s] testimony about the amount of asbestos released. 2d 1114 (2006). The defendant moved for JNOV, arguing that the verdict “was not supported by legally sufficient evidence as to causation.” Mobil Oil Corp.,

Testimonials 52

Testimonials International Production Doctors 52

Drug & Device Law

APRIL 18, 2022

The trial court granted summary judgment based on evidence that the implanting surgeon “would have used the clips in the surgery even if he had received such a warning” and thus plaintiff “could not prove the cause element of his claims.” March 30, 2021) (“Where the learned intermediary doctrine applies, the plaintiff must prove that. . .

Testimonials 59

Testimonials Production FDA Approval FDA 59