Drug & Device Law

NOVEMBER 28, 2022

Three years ago we published a lengthy post, “ Stupid Expert Tricks ,” detailing several of the other side’s egregious attempts at passing off junk science “experts” as the real thing, along with our side’s trials and tribulations during the course of unmasking these phonies. 2018) (Etminan); Gerke v. 3d 179, 181-87 (D. II) , 341 F.

Testimonials 59

Testimonials Regulations Research International 59

Drug & Device Law

APRIL 18, 2022

2018), as “ The Best Wisconsin Law Decision We’ve Ever Seen, Affirmed.” The trial court granted summary judgment based on evidence that the implanting surgeon “would have used the clips in the surgery even if he had received such a warning” and thus plaintiff “could not prove the cause element of his claims.” 3d 746 (7th Cir.

Testimonials 59

Testimonials Production FDA Approval FDA 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 Treatment 59

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

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

Drug & Device Law

MARCH 28, 2022

2018 WL 3649714 (S.D. April 19, 2018). 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. So we ran a search. High on the list was Tsao v. Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

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. 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 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

FEBRUARY 3, 2022

We found the denial of the plaintiffs’ motion for new trial in Redick v. Litigation over this PMA device has produced two separate preemption decisions that we deemed among our ten worst of the particular year ( #6 in 2018 and #6 in 2021 ). Plaintiffs raised at least seven grounds for new trial, each of which was rejected.

Trials 59

Trials Testimonials Doctors Government 59