Remove 2011 Remove Pharmaceuticals Remove Regulations Remove Testimonials
article thumbnail

Malarkey ? The Ten Worst Prescription Drug/Medical Device Decisions of 2023

Drug & Device Law

2023), was the Fifth Circuit’s blatantly politicized attack on the FDA’s regulation of abortion-related drugs. Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. , Luitpold Pharmaceuticals, Inc. FDA , 78 F.4th 4th 210 (5th Cir. Avoiding barnyard expletives – we shoveled Shikada here. Painters & Allied Trades District Council 82 Health Care Fund v.

article thumbnail

50-State Survey of State Court Decisions Supporting Expert-Related Judicial Gatekeeping

Drug & Device Law

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.

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

article thumbnail

Dealing with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s Non-Decision on Standards Compliance Evidence

Drug & Device Law

It is not evidence of the underlying attributes of the product that make it compliant with regulations or standards, which is presumably admissible subject to the ordinary Rules of Evidence. We] “borrow” the OSHA regulation for use as evidence of the standard of care owed to plaintiff. Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ,

article thumbnail

The BFDs – The Ten Best Prescription Drug/Medical Device Decisions of 2023

Drug & Device Law

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.

article thumbnail

The FDA and Feasible Alternative Designs

Drug & Device Law

223, 238 (2011), the United States Supreme Court reacted to a plaintiff’s unconstrained claims of “alternative” vaccine design: [T]he [design] decision is surely not an easy one. 7, 2022), which addressed the same question in the context of the admissibility of expert testimony. In Bruesewitz v. Wyeth LLC , 562 U.S. McNeil-PPC, Inc.

FDA 59