Drug & Device Law

JUNE 13, 2023

Then, in 2014 the Court amended Rule 702 from mirroring its federal counterpart to expressly limiting the Daubert admissibility analysis to “novel scientific theory, principle, methodology, or procedure.” Evid. methodology underlying proffered expert testimony is scientifically valid and whether that. CSX Transportation, Inc. ,

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). 2014) (Pennsylvania law), mucked things up and cases like Yates v. Wyeth , 619 F.3d

FDA Approval 59

FDA Approval FDA Testimonials Production 59

Drug & Device Law

FEBRUARY 20, 2023

The court in Wolfe refused to impose a negligence duty on the defendant pharmaceutical company to develop and obtain FDA approval of the plaintiff’s non-FDA-approved alternative. 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. 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

Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 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.

Testimonials 59

Testimonials FDA Regulations Production 59

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”). Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceutical, Inc. Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Testimonials 59

Testimonials Drugs Production Pharmaceuticals 59