This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Nothing accessed is to be interpreted as a general or specific recommendation for a specific treatment plan, product, exercise regimen or course of action. individual ailment, treatment or problem. 1 Best Fitness System of 2008 by Cleo Magazine, and “Most Challenging Workout of 2007? All testimonials on this site are real.
You should not use the information on this site for diagnosis or treatment of any health problem or for prescription of any medication or other treatment. Testimonials are not necessarily representative of all of those who will use our products. A survey of the opinions of obesity experts on the causes and treatment of obesity.
The decision simply ignored the minuscule increased risk, and didn’t compare it to the risks of any alternative treatment – or to the risks of leaving the disease, diabetes, untreated. Remember Riegel ( 2008+1 )? He heckled Holley here. CooperSurgical, Inc. 2023 WL 6216933 (S.D. Goodbye to all that in CPAP.
Specifically, plaintiffs have defined their injury as being hair loss that persists more than six months after their cessation of treatment with the defendant’s cancer chemotherapy drug. Her “injury” thus existed as of December 30, 2007, six months after her treatment was completed. Plaintiff Adams was typical.
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.
The typically gentle treatment from the MDL did not last and the plaintiff ended up with her sole case-specific causation expert excluded and her case tossed on summary judgment. (Not Depending on the figurative route from the MDL court in West Virginia to its remand destination, Donalds passed a sign urging it to “Please Drive Gently.”
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. . .
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
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. . . Today we examine it in more detail.
11, 2022), granted a Rule 702 motion excluding plaintiff’s purported FDA expert Peggy Pence, who “began working as an expert witness for plaintiffs in product liability cases in 2008” and “approximately 100% of her work was as a plaintiff’s expert in product liability litigation.” since] every case must be decided on its own merits.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 15,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content