Drug & Device Law

JULY 24, 2023

Yet what the plaintiffs were claiming is that, despite Actos’ undisputed effectiveness as a diabetes treatment, no TPP in the country would have purchased it for that purpose because of the 3/10,000 bladder cancer increased risk. at *6 (plaintiff “has documents and formularies reaching back to only 2009”). PATDC82 I , 943 F.3d

Testimonials 52

Testimonials Pharmacy FDA Doctors 52

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. 2009), reversed a plaintiff’s verdict for entry of judgment n.o.v. Medrano , 28 S.W.3d

Testimonials 59

Testimonials Production Pharmaceuticals Treatment 59

Drug & Device Law

MAY 30, 2022

The law presumes that licensed doctors know what they are doing. The prescriber’s] testimony, however, does not establish that he would have altered his prescribing conduct. There’s a reason why prescribing physicians and implanting surgeons are called “learned” intermediaries. at *3 (emphasis original). Hoffman-LaRoche, Inc. ,

Testimonials 59

Testimonials Doctors Production Laboratories 59

Drug & Device Law

SEPTEMBER 9, 2022

For instance, plaintiffs in the vast majority of cases know that they will need evidence from a prescribing physician, testimony or affidavit for summary judgment and testimony for trial. It focused squarely on the doctor. The second was the decision below. Corder , 473 F.Supp.3d Corder , 473 F.Supp.3d 3d 736 at 743.

Doctors 59

Doctors Testimonials Production Trials 59