Remove 2008 Remove Pharmaceuticals Remove Testimonials
article thumbnail

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

Drug & Device Law

Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. , Remember Riegel ( 2008+1 )? Luitpold Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Rather than examine the actual bases of those opinions, as Rule 702(b) required, Crockett waved the testimony through with the single observation that the expert claimed to have “conducted a “detailed review of the literature.”

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.

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

Not the Best Wisconsin Law Decision We’ve Ever Seen

Drug & Device Law

The surgeon’s testimony supported two grounds for non-causation: lack of reliance, and that a warning would not have changed how the prescription product was used. Wyeth Pharmaceuticals , 471 F. 2008); Herzog v. March 30, 2021) (“Where the learned intermediary doctrine applies, the plaintiff must prove that. . .

article thumbnail

The FDA and Feasible Alternative Designs

Drug & Device Law

Lederle Laboratories , 2008 WL 972657 (W. March 19, 2008) (“It is very difficult to see what else these defendants could have done” when one claimed alternative “was never licensed by the FDA” and the other “was not approved by the FDA until” nearly a decade after plaintiff’s vaccination). 1992) (plaintiff failed “to establish. . .

FDA 59
article thumbnail

Taxotere Timing Troubles Persistently Plague Plaintiffs

Drug & Device Law

All of them had very stale claims – with that injury occurring before 2008, which was seven years before the critical 2015 label change that added “reports of permanent hair loss” to the drug’s label. Plaintiff Adams’ “sworn testimony and plaintiff fact sheet” established that she blew the statute of limitations by some eight years.

article thumbnail

Confident Learned Intermediaries Defeat Warning Causation

Drug & Device Law

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

article thumbnail

Unimpressed Learned Intermediaries Defeat Warning Causation

Drug & Device Law

This scenario was the “third hypothetical” in our “ Learned Intermediary Rule 201 ” post back in 2008. The prescriber’s] testimony, however, does not establish that he would have altered his prescribing conduct. Plaintiff] has not identified any testimony from [the prescriber] that. . . Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ,