Remove 2013 Remove Doctors Remove Testimonials
article thumbnail

Another Reason Why The FDA, Not Litigants, Approves Products

Drug & Device Law

Doctors Who Perform Abortions: Their Characteristics & Patterns of Holding & Using Hospital Privileges,” 6. 9 (“Longitudinal” for the proposition that “adverse events from chemical abortion drugs can overwhelm the medical system and place ‘enormous pressure and stress’ on doctors during emergencies and complications”), at *14 n.22

FDA 59
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. They excluded bogus expert testimony under Fed. Further, “adequacy” is an objective standard, that neither a plaintiff’s self-interested testimony nor equivocal health care provider testimony can touch.

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

article thumbnail

GranuFlo/NaturaLyte MDL Substantive Rulings – Better Late Than Never

Drug & Device Law

The Granuflo/Naturalyte MDL (“ G/N ”) was created a decade ago, in 2013. W]ith considerable testimony from their own experts that all of the plaintiffs fell within an acceptable range, they have failed to adduce competent evidence in support of their claims. Plaintiffs’ doctors were adequately and timely warned. 2d 1362 (J.P.M.L

article thumbnail

Confident Learned Intermediaries Defeat Warning Causation

Drug & Device Law

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. 2013 WL 4516160, at *3 (N.M. Accord Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories Co. Medrano , 28 S.W.3d

article thumbnail

Unimpressed Learned Intermediaries Defeat Warning Causation

Drug & Device Law

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.”

article thumbnail

Can Experts Rely on Google?

Drug & Device Law

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.