Remove 2013 Remove Testimonials Remove Trials
article thumbnail

Let's Quit Sugar With Audiobook – Let's Quit Sugar

The Pharma Data

Testimonials are not necessarily representative of all of those who will use our products. Some of our testimonials are provided by customers who have received promotional offers in exchange for their participation. The testimonials displayed are given verbatim except for correction of grammatical or typing errors. 2012.11.002.

Disease 52
article thumbnail

Analysis Life Sciences Thank You Everything the FDA is planning to do in Q3 2023

Agency IQ

DSCSA implementation – Down to the wire as a deadline draws near: The Drug Supply Chain Security Act (DSCSA) was enacted in 2013 as part of the Drug Quality and Security Act (DQSA), following several drug counterfeiting scandals in which falsified medical products entered the supply chain.

FDA 40
Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

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.

article thumbnail

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

Drug & Device Law

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 ). Worst of all was Crockett ’s treatment of the expert’s “hypothesis” that the relevant risk was “systematically underreported” in clinical trials, although the expert never said by how much.

article thumbnail

Guest Post – More on Expert Gatekeeping in West Virginia

Drug & Device Law

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).

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.

article thumbnail

Pro Se Plaintiff Tries and Fails To Plead Claims For Failure To Withdraw And Failure To Warn

Drug & Device Law

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.