Drug & Device Law

MARCH 4, 2024

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.” His inability to produce admissible expert testimony is due to his own actions, namely the failure of his proposed experts to test their alternatives. Fru-Con Inc. ,

Testimonials 52

Testimonials Production Vaccine Pharmaceuticals 52

Drug & Device Law

DECEMBER 21, 2023

We’ve been diligently preparing bottom ten annual lists since 2007, even though it’s distasteful, because if we don’t do it nobody else is likely to, and these abominable decisions deserve to be called out for what they are. Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. , Luitpold Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Geri-Care Pharmaceuticals Corp. ,

FDA Approval 52

FDA Approval FDA Drugs Production 52

Drug & Device Law

JUNE 23, 2023

She completed her therapy in 2007, more than ten years before she filed suit – that suit having been solicited by a p-side lawyer. Her “injury” thus existed as of December 30, 2007, six months after her treatment was completed. Plaintiff Adams was typical. This wasn’t a close case. at *34-35.

Testimonials 59

Testimonials Government Treatment Production 59

Drug & Device Law

JUNE 13, 2023

702 was (at the time – more on this below) identical to the Federal Rule, the Court stated “we believe that Daubert is directed at situations where the scientific or technical basis for the expert testimony cannot be judicially noticed and a hearing must be held to determine its reliability. 2007) (citation omitted). 2d 275, 305 (W.

Testimonials 59

Testimonials Science Trials International 59

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

FEBRUARY 20, 2023

The court in Wolfe refused to impose a negligence duty on the defendant pharmaceutical company to develop and obtain FDA approval of the plaintiff’s non-FDA-approved alternative. 7, 2022), which addressed the same question in the context of the admissibility of expert testimony. His testimony is thus irrelevant and inadmissible.

FDA 59

FDA FDA Approval Testimonials Vaccine 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 Drugs 59