The Pharma Data

MAY 13, 2021

Testimonials are not necessarily representative of all of those who will use our products. Some of our testimonials are provided by customers who have received promotional offers in exchange for their participation. The testimonials displayed are given verbatim except for correction of grammatical or typing errors. N Engl J Med.

Disease 52

Disease Production Testimonials Science 52

Drug & Device Law

DECEMBER 21, 2023

2023), was the Fifth Circuit’s blatantly politicized attack on the FDA’s regulation of abortion-related drugs. 23, 2010) ( here ), can supersede our list, so far they’ve been thankfully uncommon. FDA , 78 F.4th 4th 210 (5th Cir. While we know that a late-breaking holiday horror, such as T.H. Novartis , 407 P.3d 3d 18 (Cal.

FDA Approval 52

FDA Approval FDA Drugs Production 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

NOVEMBER 28, 2022

2010) (Matsen); Nelson v. While cosmetic talc is not a drug or medical device, the FDA also regulates it (the “C” in the FDCA). Moline has given testimony in many other cosmetic talc cases” while keeping the (at least potentially) false premise of her article secret supported disclosure of the contrary evidence. 316, 328-29 (D.

Testimonials 59

Testimonials Regulations Research International 59

Drug & Device Law

FEBRUARY 20, 2023

That the product had been approved in “other countries” could not create a triable issue of fact because, even for other uses that the FDA eventually allowed, the necessary clinical trials had not been completed in 2010. 7, 2022), which addressed the same question in the context of the admissibility of expert testimony. See Davis v.

FDA 59

FDA FDA Approval Testimonials Vaccine 59

Drug & Device Law

AUGUST 24, 2023

The court exercised its “gatekeeping” function under Rule 702 to assess whether the methodology underlying Plaintiff’s proffered expert testimony was “scientifically valid” and whether it could “be [properly] applied to the facts in issue.” Nor could Plaintiff fill that void by relying on expert testimony from other cases.

Testimonials 52

Testimonials International Treatment Production 52