Drug & Device Law

JANUARY 15, 2024

2019), analogously held that the standard for admission of expert testimony was “procedural” and therefore Pennsylvania’s Frye rule applied, not Texas’ stricter expert admissibility standard. 2009) (en banc), decided before Tincher adopted consumer expectations as a Pennsylvania design defect test. Ford Motor Co. , 2d 524, 544 (Pa.

Compliance 52

Compliance Government Production FDA Compliance 52

Drug & Device Law

SEPTEMBER 25, 2023

Assuming the expert testimony doesn’t change, the defendant essentially gets a do-over. Not surprisingly the once and future exclusion of the plaintiffs’ expert testimony loomed large in this ginned-up dispute. It’s obvious to us what is going on here. So they tried to invent grounds for recusal from whole cloth. 455(a)).

Testimonials 59

Testimonials Trials Production Drugs 59

Drug & Device Law

JULY 24, 2023

at *6 (plaintiff “has documents and formularies reaching back to only 2009”). 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. First, the class plaintiff got away with destruction of evidence.

Testimonials 52

Testimonials Pharmacy FDA Doctors 52

Drug & Device Law

JUNE 1, 2023

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.

Testimonials 59

Testimonials Trials Science Government 59

Drug & Device Law

MARCH 9, 2023

Citing a range of Tennessee cases, the Campbell court rejected plaintiff’s argument with “it is only the Plaintiffs who are required to present expert testimony to establish causation in cases where the plaintiff has suffered a complex medical injury.” A relative risk of exactly 2.0 But we digress from our digression. LEXIS 31015, *5-6.

Testimonials 59

Testimonials Trials Production 59

Drug & Device Law

FEBRUARY 20, 2023

7, 2022), which addressed the same question in the context of the admissibility of expert testimony. were not approved by the FDA in 2009. . . . Because these designs had not been used or tested, they were not technologically feasible in 2009. His testimony is thus irrelevant and inadmissible. Ethicon, Inc. , See Davis v.

FDA 59

FDA FDA Approval Testimonials Vaccine 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 started by criticizing the court below for “focus[ing] solely on Dr. Guiler’s testimony” based on quoting part of the second sentence above.

Doctors 59

Doctors Testimonials Production Trials 59

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 Drugs 59

Drug & Device Law

MAY 30, 2022

The prescriber’s] testimony, however, does not establish that he would have altered his prescribing conduct. Given this testimony, the plaintiffs could not “show that stronger manufacturer warnings would have altered the physician’s prescribing conduct.” Plaintiff] has not identified any testimony from [the prescriber] that. . .

Testimonials 59

Testimonials Doctors Production Laboratories 59

Drug & Device Law

FEBRUARY 28, 2022

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. 22 (S.D.N.Y.

Testimonials 64

Testimonials Engineering Doctors Trials 64

Drug & Device Law

FEBRUARY 25, 2022

case ( Conte ) in 2009. The defendant first sought PLAC’s help on en banc rehearing, after suffering a loss on admission of expert testimony that we considered to be the worst decision of 2021. Notice how admissibility of expert testimony under Fed. The appeal remains pending. Bausch & Lomb, Inc. , SC20607 (Conn.

Testimonials 59

Testimonials Drugs Production Pharmaceuticals 59