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

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

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 Treatment 59

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

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

AUGUST 24, 2023

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.

Testimonials 52

Testimonials International Treatment Production 52

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

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 International Trials 59