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. De Araujo IE.

Disease 52

Disease Production Testimonials Science 52

Drug & Device Law

DECEMBER 21, 2023

23, 2010) ( here ), can supersede our list, so far they’ve been thankfully uncommon. Rather than examine the actual bases of those opinions, as Rule 702(b) required, Crockett waved the testimony through with the single observation that the expert claimed to have “conducted a “detailed review of the literature.” Novartis , 407 P.3d

FDA Approval 52

FDA Approval FDA Drugs Production 52

Drug & Device Law

JULY 24, 2023

The class period is between 1999 and 2010. Second, as for superiority, PATDC82 II admitted that a class trial would face “enormous logistical hurdles,” but nonetheless found a nationwide class action “superior.” Thus, “[o]ne supposed ‘nightmare’ trial is preferable to many hundreds of shorter ones.” at *3 (footnote omitted).

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

NOVEMBER 28, 2022

Three years ago we published a lengthy post, “ Stupid Expert Tricks ,” detailing several of the other side’s egregious attempts at passing off junk science “experts” as the real thing, along with our side’s trials and tribulations during the course of unmasking these phonies. 2010) (Matsen); Nelson v. 3d 179, 181-87 (D. 316, 328-29 (D.

Testimonials 59

Testimonials Regulations Research International 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.

FDA 59

FDA FDA Approval Testimonials Vaccine 59