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). 2016), and In re Zantac (Ranitidine) Prods. Wyeth , 85 A.3d 3d 434 (Pa. 3d 1034 (S.D.

FDA Approval 59

FDA Approval FDA Testimonials Production 59

Drug & Device Law

APRIL 18, 2022

2016), “ Probably the Best Wisconsin Law Decision We’ve Ever Seen.” make clear that Wisconsin adopts the doctrine, as consistently predicted by Wisconsin federal courts since 2016. We designated the opinion In re Zimmer Nexgen Knee Implant Products Liability Litigation , 218 F. 3d 700 (N.D. 3d 746 (7th Cir. and finally ?

Testimonials 59

Testimonials Production FDA Approval FDA 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! ) The legal framework for Fajardo was straightforward. 3d 1183 (Conn.

Testimonials 59

Testimonials Production Trials Compliance 59

Drug & Device Law

MARCH 4, 2024

2016) (citation omitted). 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.” 2001), recognized that “fairness does not require that a plaintiff, whose expert witness testimony has been found inadmissible. . .,

Testimonials 52

Testimonials Production Vaccine Pharmaceuticals 52

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 Treatment 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

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. Ballard , 787 S.E.2d 2d 864, 880 (W. State ex rel.

Testimonials 59

Testimonials Science International Trials 59