Drug & Device Law

JULY 24, 2023

We’ve discussed recently how a federal statute intended to allow suits against international terrorists has been misapplied as allowing suits against pharmaceutical companies. Takeda Pharmaceuticals Co. , Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. , 3d 1243 (9th Cir. 1 (highlights). 3d at 1247. 3d , 2023 WL 4191651 (C.D.

Testimonials 52

Testimonials Pharmacy FDA Doctors 52

Drug & Device Law

DECEMBER 29, 2023

2023) (remote trial testimony cannot be compelled beyond Rule 45’s 100-mile limit on subpoenas) ( here ); Carson v. 2023) (HHS cannot force pharmaceutical manufacturers to sell unlimited amounts of prescription drugs at a discount) ( here ). They excluded bogus expert testimony under Fed. Bonta , 85 F.4th 4th 1263 (9th Cir.

Testimonials 105

Testimonials FDA Drugs Vaccine 105

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 Treatment 59

Drug & Device Law

MAY 30, 2022

The law presumes that licensed doctors know what they are doing. 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.”

Testimonials 59

Testimonials Doctors Production Laboratories 59