This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
According to the Centre for Disease Control and Prevention, the number of deaths caused by liver disease and cirrhosis has risen every year since 2007. There are no drugs for this. Testimonial / Case Study Legal Disclaimer: The story, testimonials, and case studies discussed on this page may be unique. No tablet to take.
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. 2012.11.002.
Speaking of cold and darkness, it is now time for us to look back upon the results of drug and medical device litigation during 2023 and to select the ten worst decisions of the year. 2023), was the Fifth Circuit’s blatantly politicized attack on the FDA’s regulation of abortion-related drugs. FDA , 78 F.4th 4th 210 (5th Cir.
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.
Specifically, plaintiffs have defined their injury as being hair loss that persists more than six months after their cessation of treatment with the defendant’s cancer chemotherapy drug. She completed her therapy in 2007, more than ten years before she filed suit – that suit having been solicited by a p-side lawyer.
In the “ 50-State Survey of State Court Decisions Supporting Expert-Related Judicial Gatekeeping ,” the Drug & Device Law Blog (the Best Blog on the Planet) describes West Virginia as a “gatekeeper” state because of cases reflecting adoption of the Daubert analysis of W. 2007) (citation omitted). CSX Transportation, Inc. ,
Drug manufacturers often could trade a little less efficacy for a little more safety, but the safest design is not always the best one. to determine whether a proposed alternative drug would have received FDA approval.” For physicians to prescribe such a safer drug, it must reach the market. Wyeth LLC , 562 U.S. 2d 506 (N.Y.
1996), which rejected strict liability in a prescription drug case, to cases over prescription medical devices. 2014), a prescription drug case. What followed was a bizarre discourse on how drugs are “intrinsically dangerous” because they “are comprised of biologics meant to interact with and have an effect upon human tissue.”
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 3d 75 (Fla.
That means that prescribers can make risk/benefit analyses to determine what prescription drugs or medical devices their patients need. The prescriber’s] testimony, however, does not establish that he would have altered his prescribing conduct. That “common and widely known side effect” of many “chemotherapy drugs,” id.
at 287 (citing transcript of expert’s testimony). [A]t A]t first blush, [the expert’s] testimony. No other witness offered testimony on these unidentified standards. An excellent example is the Sherman case, which involved junk science causation testimony in what we call a “toxic soup” chemical exposure case. Boulle, Ltd.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 15,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content