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). 604 (2011), and Mutual Pharm. Wyeth Ayerst Pharms. , 3d 364 (1st Cir. 3d 1034 (S.D.

FDA Approval 59

FDA Approval FDA Testimonials Production 59

Drug & Device Law

MARCH 9, 2023

Defense trial lawyers with a lot of, er, gumption have been known to rest at the end of plaintiff’s case without presenting any witnesses. More generally, a defendant can rely on the jury to reject plaintiff’s expert’s testimony, especially when aided by effective cross-examination. A relative risk of exactly 2.0 LEXIS 31015, *5-6.

Testimonials 59

Testimonials Trials Production 59

Drug & Device Law

FEBRUARY 20, 2023

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. His testimony is thus irrelevant and inadmissible.

FDA 59

FDA FDA Approval Testimonials Vaccine 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. caused anything. 3d 87, 95 (Tex.

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 25, 2022

We return to a theme we’ve repeated twice before, in 2011 and in 2014 – that in addition to industry-specific groups, manufacturers of prescription medical products should definitely consider joining the Product Liability Advisory Council (“PLAC”). Notice how admissibility of expert testimony under Fed. 19-2899 (8th Cir. filed Sept.

Testimonials 59

Testimonials Drugs Production Pharmaceuticals 59