Drug & Device Law

MARCH 4, 2024

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.” His inability to produce admissible expert testimony is due to his own actions, namely the failure of his proposed experts to test their alternatives. Weisgram v.

Testimonials 52

Testimonials Production Vaccine Pharmaceuticals 52

Drug & Device Law

JANUARY 5, 2024

I am Susanna Moldoveanu , and I practice with Butler Snow LLP’s Pharmaceutical, Medical Device and Healthcare group. Because such a claim did not share “common core of facts” with the original alleged injury—a 2018 stroke—the claim did not relate back to the original complaint and thus was time-barred. 2023 WL 8717570, *3.

Testimonials 52

Testimonials Production Doctors Pharmaceuticals 52

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

JULY 24, 2023

We’ve discussed recently how a federal statute intended to allow suits against international terrorists has been misapplied as allowing suits against pharmaceutical companies. Takeda Pharmaceuticals Co. , Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. , See , e.g. , In re Thalomid & Revlimid Antitrust Litigation , 2018 WL 6573118, at *4 (D.N.J.

Testimonials 52

Testimonials Pharmacy FDA Doctors 52

Drug & Device Law

JUNE 23, 2023

2018) (all substantive law); McCarrell v. Plaintiff Adams’ “sworn testimony and plaintiff fact sheet” established that she blew the statute of limitations by some eight years. That court ruled, in effect, that when mass tort litigation tourists come to New Jersey to sue a New Jersey company, they may only do so under New Jersey law.

Testimonials 59

Testimonials Government Treatment Production 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). There was a similar endorsement in 2018. 2023 WL 2386776, *3.

FDA Approval 59

FDA Approval FDA Testimonials Production 59