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

Drug & Device Law

JULY 24, 2023

The class period is between 1999 and 2010. 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. at *3 (footnote omitted). We searched PATDC82 II for the word “generic” – it does not appear.

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 16, 2023

In two of these cases, our client won summary judgment at the trial court level and an appellate court ended up creating a new cause of action to accommodate the plaintiff’s theory (and lack of helpful testimony from the prescribing physician). 2010) (Ohio law), and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Lance v. Wyeth , 619 F.3d

FDA Approval 59

FDA Approval FDA Testimonials Production 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. Because the facts of [plaintiff’s] case paralleled the description of [the pseudonym] in Dr. Moline’s congressional testimony, [defendant] suspected that [she] was one of the thirty-three anonymous individuals that the article had studied. 3d 213, 222-23, 229-32 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) (Etminan); Gerke v.

Testimonials 59

Testimonials Regulations Research International 59

Drug & Device Law

JUNE 20, 2022

The pre-litigation facts of Donaldson are fairly simple: Implant in 2010 of the two devices and treatment in 2014 for “injuries resulting from erosion of the mesh into her bladder, vagina and adjacent tissues, causing scarring, bladder stones and abdominal pain, among other problems.” That meant summary judgment.

Testimonials 59

Testimonials Production Doctors Treatment 59

Drug & Device Law

JUNE 16, 2022

Mata also reminds us of: (2) the numerous courts that ignored the 2010 amendment to Fed. These decisions did that in order to keep holding issues, such as the sufficiency of the factual basis for expert testimony, to be jury questions when the new Rule 702 expressly consigned them to the court’s gatekeeping function.

Testimonials 59

Testimonials Production Drugs 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

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.

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

First, plaintiffs complained about allegedly undisclosed opinion testimony offered by a defense expert. Despite this, plaintiffs complained of prejudice because more than a day passed between the testimony and telling the jury to disregard it. We will trust you to fill in the blanks.

Trials 59

Trials Testimonials Doctors Government 59