Drug & Device Law

JANUARY 16, 2024

But that “purely fact testimony” was inadmissible for several reasons. Second, the testimony plaintiff wants to offer is still expert testimony—it involves the witness’ “specialized knowledge” beyond what a lay person would know. And if he’s a turncoat expert, his testimony is inadmissible. Depuy Orthopaedics Inc.

Testimonials 52

Testimonials FDA 52

Drug & Device Law

JANUARY 9, 2024

Like when written discovery responses say one thing, medical records say the same thing, plaintiff’s deposition testimony is also the same, but a post deposition affidavit says something completely different. 9, 2023). Plaintiff had an IVC filter implanted in 2013 and filed suit in 2021. And the court in Stanford v. That’s a no-no.

Testimonials 52

Testimonials Drugs 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. 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.

Testimonials 105

Testimonials FDA Drugs Vaccine 105

Drug & Device Law

DECEMBER 21, 2023

Bexis’ amicus efforts this year in Mallory obviously came to naught, and we’ve had our own cases on this list before (see, e.g. , 2013-2 and 2021-10 ). If you’ve been burned by any of these judicial debacles, we sympathize. A lawyer who never loses doesn’t litigate hard cases. Nowhere did Crockett discuss what that “literature” might be.

FDA Approval 52

FDA Approval FDA Drugs Production 52

Drug & Device Law

NOVEMBER 27, 2023

Thus, when the other side inveigles one of ours to switch sides – usually with the promise of a lot more money for a lot more testimony – the result can be a lot of collateral litigation. We’ve blogged a couple of times before about turncoat experts, so the recent decision in Hawkins v. DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. 2023 WL 7292164 (D.D.C.

Testimonials 96

Testimonials Production Engineering Science 96

Drug & Device Law

OCTOBER 30, 2023

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. 2d 1362 (J.P.M.L

Testimonials 59

Testimonials Production Doctors Treatment 59

Drug & Device Law

JUNE 13, 2023

702 was (at the time – more on this below) identical to the Federal Rule, the Court stated “we believe that Daubert is directed at situations where the scientific or technical basis for the expert testimony cannot be judicially noticed and a hearing must be held to determine its reliability. 2013) (citation and quotation marks omitted). “We.

Testimonials 59

Testimonials Science Trials International 59

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). 472 (2013). 2020), helped restore some sanity. Mensing , 564 U.S. Bartlett , 570 U.S.

FDA Approval 59

FDA Approval FDA Testimonials Production 59

Drug & Device Law

NOVEMBER 28, 2022

2013) (Painter); McClellan v. Because the facts of [plaintiff’s] case paralleled the description of [the pseudonym] in Dr. Moline’s congressional testimony, [defendant] suspected that [she] was one of the thirty-three anonymous individuals that the article had studied. II) , 341 F. 3d 213, 222-23, 229-32 (S.D.N.Y. 316, 328-29 (D.

Testimonials 59

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

Testimonials 59

Testimonials Production Pharmaceuticals Drugs 59

Drug & Device Law

MAY 30, 2022

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.” Plaintiff] has not identified any testimony from [the prescriber] that. . .

Testimonials 59

Testimonials Doctors Production Laboratories 59

Drug & Device Law

MARCH 28, 2022

The Federal Rules of Evidence do not permit an expert to render conclusions of law, because such testimony cannot properly assist the jury in understanding the evidence or determining a fact in issue. Rather, expert testimony couched as legal conclusion merely tells the jury which result to reach. In Sadler v. See Tyree v.

Testimonials 59

Testimonials FDA Regulations Production 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