Remove 2007 Remove Regulations Remove Testimonials
article thumbnail

Let's Quit Sugar With Audiobook – Let's Quit Sugar

The Pharma Data

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.

Disease 52
article thumbnail

Malarkey ? The Ten Worst Prescription Drug/Medical Device Decisions of 2023

Drug & Device Law

2023), was the Fifth Circuit’s blatantly politicized attack on the FDA’s regulation of abortion-related drugs. 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.

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Trending Sources

article thumbnail

50-State Survey of State Court Decisions Supporting Expert-Related Judicial Gatekeeping

Drug & Device Law

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.

article thumbnail

The FDA and Feasible Alternative Designs

Drug & Device Law

14, 2015) (claimed alternative could not be considered for plaintiffs who “had their surgeries prior to the commercial availability of” the claimed alternative because it “was not approved by the Food and Drug Administration until June 2007 and was not commercially available until late” that year). Baksic relied on Pizzitola v. See Davis v.

FDA 59
article thumbnail

Guest Post – Defendant Pitches A Shut Out And Hits A Home Run In Securing Summary Judgment In A Fosamax Case

Drug & Device Law

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.