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

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

NOVEMBER 28, 2022

2010) (Matsen); Nelson v. Not surprisingly, defendants sought to find out who the anonymous asbestos plaintiffs that comprised her “research subjects” were. Moline’s congressional testimony, [defendant] suspected that [she] was one of the thirty-three anonymous individuals that the article had studied. 2018) (Etminan); Gerke v.

Testimonials 59

Testimonials Regulations Research International 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. Confident learned intermediaries stand by their medical decisions. Medrano , 28 S.W.3d

Testimonials 59

Testimonials Production Pharmaceuticals Drugs 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.

Testimonials 64

Testimonials Engineering Doctors Trials 64

Drug & Device Law

FEBRUARY 17, 2022

The crux of her argument on appeal was that deposition testimony from a physician who used to work for the defendant should not have been introduced at trial because he was not named as an expert, and that defendant’s designated expert should not have been allowed to rely on that deposition testimony when he testified live at trial.

Testimonials 72

Testimonials Trials International Drugs 72

Drug & Device Law

FEBRUARY 3, 2022

The plaintiff moved for new trial and there was further briefing after a deposition of an Australian researcher who did not testify at the trial. First, plaintiffs complained about allegedly undisclosed opinion testimony offered by a defense expert. Plaintiffs raised at least seven grounds for new trial, each of which was rejected.

Trials 59

Trials Testimonials Doctors Government 59