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

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

FDA FDA Approval Testimonials Vaccine 59

Drug & Device Law

AUGUST 26, 2022

Instead, it looked to Pennsylvania’s ultimate requirement of proof of expert testimony to prove a prescription drug (!!!) Without deciding whether 9(b)’s heightened pleading standards apply to a negligent misrepresentation claim, the court cited 2001 and 2007 Eastern District of Pennsylvania cases for a “degree of specificity” standard.

Production 59

Production Testimonials Trials Marketing 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

Drug & Device Law

JUNE 3, 2022

The plaintiff had hip replacement surgery in 2007, and after allegedly experiencing persistent pain, he sued the hip device manufacturer in California state court. The defendant had a causation expert too, plus testimony from treating physicians on potential alternate causes. The case is Kline v. Zimmer, Inc. , May 26, 2022).

Trials 52

Trials Testimonials Production 52

Drug & Device Law

MAY 30, 2022

The prescriber’s] testimony, however, does not establish that he would have altered his prescribing conduct. Given this testimony, the plaintiffs could not “show that stronger manufacturer warnings would have altered the physician’s prescribing conduct.” Plaintiff] has not identified any testimony from [the prescriber] that. . .

Testimonials 59

Testimonials Doctors Production Laboratories 59

Drug & Device Law

APRIL 19, 2022

The defendant opposed admission of that testimony on the ground that “trade secret” – like “adulterated”/”misbranded” in our prior post – was a legal term of art, and thus improper as a basis for an expert opinion. The court agreed with the defendant, and wrote an unusually thorough explanation of why this testimony was being excluded. “One

Testimonials 72

Testimonials Engineering Government Production 72

Drug & Device Law

FEBRUARY 28, 2022

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.

Testimonials 64

Testimonials Engineering Doctors Trials 64