Remove 2009 Remove Doctors Remove Testimonials Remove Trials
article thumbnail

How Lume Whole Body Deodorant Was Inspired by a Genetic Disease

PLOS: DNA Science

Among the barrage of drug ads for cancer, diabetes, weight loss and more are those for Lume , a “doctor-developed whole body deodorant.” ” The Patent Trail Rather than relying on social media, company websites, and testimonials, I consulted the Patent and Trademark database to reconstruct the story of invention.

Disease 88
article thumbnail

Another RICOdiculous Decision

Drug & Device Law

at *6 (plaintiff “has documents and formularies reaching back to only 2009”). Thus, “[o]ne supposed ‘nightmare’ trial is preferable to many hundreds of shorter ones.” This time-tested type of evidence is mostly absent from the analysis in PATDC82 II – as in Neurontin , the only actual prescriber testimony belied plaintiffs’ position.

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

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. 2009), reversed a plaintiff’s verdict for entry of judgment n.o.v. caused anything.

article thumbnail

Can Experts Rely on Google?

Drug & Device Law

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.

article thumbnail

Doctors Without Burdens:  Another Mesh Court Goes Backwards

Drug & Device Law

317, 322 (1986), that summary judgment was mandated “against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party’s case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial.” It focused squarely on the doctor. Catrett , 477 U.S. The second was the decision below.

Doctors 59