Drug & Device Law

DECEMBER 28, 2023

While Frye was seen as a high bar at the start, by the 1980s, a cadre of practitioners of the ancient art of junk science were routinely permitted to offer medical causation opinions at trial despite general causation being anything but generally accepted. The only thing missing was accusing the defendants of buying the science.

Testimonials 52

Testimonials FDA Science Drugs 52

Drug & Device Law

JULY 24, 2023

Second, as for superiority, PATDC82 II admitted that a class trial would face “enormous logistical hurdles,” but nonetheless found a nationwide class action “superior.” Thus, “[o]ne supposed ‘nightmare’ trial is preferable to many hundreds of shorter ones.” 2014) (both complete with diagrams). 2023 WL 4191651, at *8.

Testimonials 52

Testimonials Pharmacy FDA Doctors 52

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. The [procedural] regime contemplates that trial judges will perform a gatekeeping function, determining whether the. . .

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

That the product had been approved in “other countries” could not create a triable issue of fact because, even for other uses that the FDA eventually allowed, the necessary clinical trials had not been completed in 2010. 7, 2022), which addressed the same question in the context of the admissibility of expert testimony. See Davis v.

FDA 59

FDA FDA Approval Testimonials Vaccine 59

Drug & Device Law

AUGUST 26, 2022

After more than a month away at trial, we probably should not have picked a case that hit so close to home, so to speak. 2014), a prescription drug case. 2014), a case about steel tubing used as a gas line. Instead, it looked to Pennsylvania’s ultimate requirement of proof of expert testimony to prove a prescription drug (!!!)

Production 59

Production Testimonials Trials Marketing 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

MAY 12, 2022

A specific remanded pelvic mesh case is just another case on the judge’s docket that needs a trial date and rulings on motions for summary judgment, to exclude experts, for reconsideration, etc. 2:12-CV-4301, 2014 WL 457544, at *5 (S.D.W. From our perspective, the individual focus is the big difference.

Production 59

Production FDA Trials Testimonials 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. 2014 WL 4851989, at *36 (S.D.W.

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

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

Drug & Device Law

JANUARY 28, 2022

The question on appeal was whether the trial court properly declined to give the jury an instruction on safer reasonable alternative design, one of the two ways under Connecticut law that a plaintiff can prove design defect. The jury returned a defense verdict. newsflash! ) Fajardo , 2021 WL 5989909, at *12-*13 (citations omitted).

Testimonials 59

Testimonials Production Trials Compliance 59