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. 2023) (HHS cannot force pharmaceutical manufacturers to sell unlimited amounts of prescription drugs at a discount) ( here ). They excluded bogus expert testimony under Fed. Bonta , 85 F.4th 4th 1263 (9th Cir.

Testimonials 105

Testimonials FDA Drugs Vaccine 105

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). 2015), Tersigni v. Wyeth , 619 F.3d 3d 632 (6th Cir. Wyeth , 85 A.3d 3d 434 (Pa.

FDA Approval 59

FDA Approval FDA Testimonials Production 59

Drug & Device Law

FEBRUARY 11, 2024

Another of our posts quoted similar concerns raised by our clients in the pharmaceutical industry as the matter was being successfully appealed to the United States Supreme Court: The Fifth Circuit’s ruling threatens to stifle pharmaceutical innovation by disrupting industry’s reasonable investment-backed expectations. Longbons T.,

FDA 59

FDA Production FDA Approval Regulations 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. 0295, 2015 WL 5022618, at *12 (N.J. 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

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 Treatment 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

JUNE 23, 2023

All of them had very stale claims – with that injury occurring before 2008, which was seven years before the critical 2015 label change that added “reports of permanent hair loss” to the drug’s label. Plaintiff Adams’ “sworn testimony and plaintiff fact sheet” established that she blew the statute of limitations by some eight years.

Testimonials 59

Testimonials Government Treatment Production 59

Drug & Device Law

MARCH 4, 2024

In re Zoloft Products Liability Litigation , 2015 WL 115486 (E.D. In re Zoloft (Sertraline Hydrochloride) Products Liability Litigation , 2015 WL 7776911 (E.D. Plaintiffs will not be heard to argue that they “could have shored up their cases by other means had they known their expert testimony would be found inadmissible.”

Testimonials 52

Testimonials Production Vaccine Pharmaceuticals 52

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