Drug & Device Law

DECEMBER 4, 2023

Taking the good doctor first, In re Philips Recalled CPAP, Bi-Level Pap, & Mechanical Ventilator Products Litigation , 2023 WL 7019667 (Sp. 662, 679 (2009). at *22 (Florida), *23 (Indiana, Minnesota); and (2) improperly based expansive predictions on nothing more than trial court decisions. Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S.

Production 52

Production Trials Treatment Pharmaceuticals 52

Drug & Device Law

JULY 28, 2023

If the cases do not resolve at the conclusion of that phase, they can be transferred back to their original courts for trial and final resolution. Evidence which has led to “plaintiffs’ long-standing focus” on the defendant’s receipt of Australian ad hoc data in 2009. In re BHR MDL , 2023 U.S. LEXIS 123112, *60 (D. LEXIS 157412 (D.

Trials 52

Trials Doctors Production Research 52

Drug & Device Law

JULY 24, 2023

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.” Without any consideration of what actual doctors did for actual patients with actual diseases, all that was proven was the maxim “garbage in, garbage out.”

Testimonials 52

Testimonials Pharmacy FDA Doctors 52

Drug & Device Law

FEBRUARY 3, 2023

In 2009, a detailed warning was added to the “Precautions” section of the label. Adding additional obligations to compensate for current events isn’t – or shouldn’t be – the province of a trial court judge. 2022), the plaintiffs alleged that the defendant’s asthma medication caused them to suffer neuropsychiatric side effects.

Doctors 52

Doctors FDA Production Drugs 52

Drug & Device Law

FEBRUARY 28, 2022

Significantly, it would be essentially impossible for defense counsel to effectively cross-examine [him] at trial without knowing the particulars of [his] Google searches, specifically any information he reviewed and rejected and the reasons for doing so. at *6 (citations and quotation marks omitted). Louisville Ladder, Inc. , 22 (S.D.N.Y.

Testimonials 64

Testimonials Engineering Doctors Trials 64

Drug & Device Law

JUNE 6, 2022

One prescriber “testified that based on her review of all the post-approval data, at the time of trial, she believed the [risk] was still rare.” Further, “both doctors testified that they still prescribe [the drug] for patients with conditions similar to plaintiff’s condition.” caused anything. Schering Corp. , 2d 1140, 1148 (N.J.

Testimonials 59

Testimonials Production Pharmaceuticals Treatment 59

Drug & Device Law

NOVEMBER 7, 2022

Back in 2009, the defendant’s “production stalled due to various problems at its manufacturing facility.” We’ve also addressed similar claims made after unsuccessful clinical trials are terminated. They] still saw their own doctors and would necessarily have known they were dealing with a private company. . . . [B]oth

Production 72

Production FDA Approval Packaging Doctors 72

Drug & Device Law

SEPTEMBER 9, 2022

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

Doctors Testimonials Production Trials 59