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.

FDA Approval 59

FDA Approval FDA Testimonials Production 59

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

AUGUST 26, 2022

After more than a month away at trial, we probably should not have picked a case that hit so close to home, so to speak. The court did not mention that the manufacturer was sold in 2018.) Instead, it looked to Pennsylvania’s ultimate requirement of proof of expert testimony to prove a prescription drug (!!!) Wyeth , 85 A.3d

Production 59

Production Testimonials Trials Marketing 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 Drugs 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

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

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

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