Drug & Device Law

AUGUST 26, 2022

The court did not mention that the manufacturer was sold in 2018.) 1996), which rejected strict liability in a prescription drug case, to cases over prescription medical devices. 2014), a prescription drug case. The strong majority of courts to consider this issue have applied the ruling from Hahn v. Richter , 673 A.2d

Production 59

Production Testimonials Marketing Trials 59

Drug & Device Law

DECEMBER 26, 2023

Testimony by expert witnesses. First, the Committee found it necessary to “emphasize” both the court’s role and the burden of proof. “[E]xpert testimony may not be admitted unless the proponent demonstrates to the court that it is more likely than not that the proffered testimony meets the admissibility requirements set forth in the rule.”

Testimonials 52

Testimonials Government Production Pharmaceuticals 52

Drug & Device Law

APRIL 18, 2022

2018), as “ The Best Wisconsin Law Decision We’ve Ever Seen, Affirmed.” The surgeon’s testimony supported two grounds for non-causation: lack of reliance, and that a warning would not have changed how the prescription product was used. 2016), “ Probably the Best Wisconsin Law Decision We’ve Ever Seen.” 3d 746 (7th Cir.

Testimonials 59

Testimonials Production FDA Approval FDA 59

Drug & Device Law

NOVEMBER 28, 2022

2018) (Etminan); Gerke v. While cosmetic talc is not a drug or medical device, the FDA also regulates it (the “C” in the FDCA). Moline has given testimony in many other cosmetic talc cases” while keeping the (at least potentially) false premise of her article secret supported disclosure of the contrary evidence. II) , 341 F.

Testimonials 59

Testimonials Regulations Research International 59

Drug & Device Law

MARCH 16, 2023

Back during the diet drug litigation, we had cases with very significant alleged injuries and a colorable argument that the label was inaccurate as to the risk of the plaintiffs’ injuries. If the drug had not been sold at the time, then it did not matter what the prescribers thought. There was a similar endorsement in 2018.

FDA Approval 59

FDA Approval FDA Testimonials Production 59

Drug & Device Law

JUNE 23, 2023

Specifically, plaintiffs have defined their injury as being hair loss that persists more than six months after their cessation of treatment with the defendant’s cancer chemotherapy drug. 2018) (all substantive law); McCarrell v. See In re Accutane Litigation , 194 A.3d 3d 503, 521-24 (N.J. Hoffmann-La Roche, Inc. , 3d 207, 221-23 (N.J.

Testimonials 59

Testimonials Government Treatment Production 59

Drug & Device Law

MAY 30, 2022

That means that prescribers can make risk/benefit analyses to determine what prescription drugs or medical devices their patients need. The prescriber’s] testimony, however, does not establish that he would have altered his prescribing conduct. That “common and widely known side effect” of many “chemotherapy drugs,” id.

Testimonials 59

Testimonials Doctors Production Laboratories 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 3d 75 (Fla.

Testimonials 59

Testimonials Production Pharmaceuticals Treatment 59

Drug & Device Law

JANUARY 5, 2024

I am excited to join the Drug & Device Law Blogging Team. A prior opinion in this case earned the top spot on the Blog’s Ten Best Prescription Drug/Medical Device Decisions of 2022. Plaintiffs had no evidence to rebut the treater’s clear testimony. The best group of legal wonks there is. Eli Lilly & Co., 18, 2023).

Testimonials 52

Testimonials Doctors Production Pharmaceuticals 52

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. 2018 WL 1440608, at *5 (W.D. at *3 (quoting expert’s testimony). 2018 WL 4286197 (N.D. 7, 2018), reached essentially the same result.

Testimonials 64

Testimonials Engineering Doctors Trials 64

Drug & Device Law

MARCH 28, 2022

2018 WL 3649714 (S.D. April 19, 2018). A lot of the discussion in Tsao was case specific because the purported expert opinions at issue were among the most ridiculous we’ve ever seen – directly contrary to the controlling FDA regulations applicable to the particular drug. High on the list was Tsao v. See Tyree v.

Testimonials 59

Testimonials FDA Regulations Production 59