Drug & Device Law

DECEMBER 5, 2022

2022 WL 3147194 (C.D. 2022), review denied (Cal. July 13, 2022). The final bullet point, concerning due process is the focus of the defendants’ petition for certiorari with the United States Supreme Court, filed on November 10, 2022, and currently pending at Johnson & Johnson v State of California , No. Ethicon, Inc.

Testimonials 64

Testimonials Doctors Production Trials 64

Drug & Device Law

NOVEMBER 25, 2022

2022 WL 16753646 (11th Cir. 8, 2022), is a decision on the appeal of a Northern District of Florida decision we liked very much. Arevalo , 2022 WL 1673646 at *4. The court then granted summary judgment for the defendant because the plaintiff could not reach the jury without expert specific causation testimony.

Testimonials 59

Testimonials Doctors International 59

Drug & Device Law

OCTOBER 20, 2022

10, 2022), is not one of those. For instance, a plaintiff has to prove both “substantial factor” and “but for” causation and that has to come from expert testimony for a prescription medical device. For some reason, though, plaintiff attempted to rely on the deposition testimony of two of the treating physicians, Drs.

Testimonials 59

Testimonials Doctors Hospitals Production 59

Drug & Device Law

JUNE 20, 2022

That could be because the local courts have taken a different approach than the MDLs did, because it is hard to prove a design defect when your experts criticize every device in the class, or because the prescribing doctors in later cases were aware of the risks. 4th __, 2022 WL 2145276 (7th Cir. Donaldson v.

Testimonials 59

Testimonials Production Doctors Treatment 59

Drug & Device Law

JUNE 13, 2022

The evidence showed, however, that “[e]ach doctor and nurse involved with [plaintiff’s] medical care in 1997 was aware that only the patient should activate the [device] unless a doctor instructed otherwise.” 2022 WL 970681 (N.D. March 31, 2022); Robinson v. 3d , 2022 WL 614919 (S.D. March 2, 2022).

Testimonials 59

Testimonials Licensing Licensing 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. Medrano , 28 S.W.3d

Testimonials 59

Testimonials Production Pharmaceuticals Drugs 59

Drug & Device Law

JUNE 1, 2022

We’ve been writing for a while about cases rejecting someone’s insistence that a doctor prescribe ivermectin for Covid-19, even when that doctor (or hospital) thinks such use of ivermectin is not appropriate medical care – is, in fact, horsebleep. ?. Aurora Healthcare , 2022 WL 1657559 (Wisc. The appellate court was unimpressed.

Doctors 124

Doctors Treatment Hospitals Testimonials 124

Drug & Device Law

MAY 30, 2022

The law presumes that licensed doctors know what they are doing. Somatics, LLC , 2022 WL 989469 (9th Cir. April 1, 2022) (the companion case to this ). The prescriber’s] testimony, however, does not establish that he would have altered his prescribing conduct. These propositions were employed recently in Himes v.

Testimonials 59

Testimonials Doctors Production Laboratories 59

Drug & Device Law

APRIL 29, 2022

2022 WL 1217464 (Ct. 26, 2022), New York’s highest court reversed an asbestos jury’s verdict for the plaintiff, holding that the plaintiff’s experts had not adduced sufficient proof that the defendant’s product caused the plaintiff’s decedent’s fatal mesothelioma. Nemeth , 2022 WL 1217464 at *1. We will keep you posted.

Testimonials 52

Testimonials International Production Doctors 52

Drug & Device Law

APRIL 6, 2022

Colorado March 28, 2022), because it hammers some ubiquitous plaintiff mesh experts and because it finds a way to depart from an awful MDL ruling. The remand court began its opinion with a reference to the court’s gatekeeper role in admitting or excluding expert testimony, so we immediately suspected we were in for a good ride.

Testimonials 52

Testimonials Production Trials Doctors 52

Drug & Device Law

MARCH 23, 2022

Texas March 16, 2022). The plaintiff lawyers had managed to extract some testimony from the prescriber that he would have read with interest any additional information about the mesh product’s complication rates. This ploy often works at doctor depositions. Back by popular demand, here is the mesh case of the week: Clowe v.

Doctors 59

Doctors Testimonials Production 59

Drug & Device Law

MARCH 9, 2022

Texas March 2, 2022)— is a veritable mixed bag. The issue in Robinson was the admissibility of testimony by the plaintiff’s regulatory expert. So much for judicial gate-keeping, Inadequate Warnings to Doctors. How does such testimony meet the relevance requirement of Fed. The “mesh case of the week” — Robinson v.

Testimonials 64

Testimonials FDA Doctors Regulations 64

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. 2022 WL 138630 (C.D. 14, 2022). at *3 (quoting expert’s testimony). Exclusion of expert testimony was affirmed in Ervin v.

Testimonials 64

Testimonials Engineering Doctors Trials 64

Drug & Device Law

FEBRUARY 21, 2022

2022 WL 425206 (N.D. Thus, Pence’s proposed testimony didn’t “fit” this case: There is no logical connection between her expertise, the issues in the case, and her opinions. Plaintiff’s] argument that [her] testimony has been admitted in other cases is not persuasive. 2022 WL 409638 (N.D. 2022 WL 336811 (N.D.

Testimonials 59

Testimonials Clinical Trials Production Trials 59

Drug & Device Law

FEBRUARY 9, 2022

Mayo Clinic , 2022 Fla. 27, 2022), and its reasoning is crystalline and straightforward. Against the authority of the Mayo Clinic and other reputable sources, the plaintiffs relied on the testimony of a single doctor. The doctor testifying for the plaintiffs was licensed in Florida, but with no board certifications.

Doctors 64

Doctors Hospitals Testimonials Treatment 64

Drug & Device Law

FEBRUARY 3, 2022

2775, 1:17-cv-00944, 2022 WL 171503 (D. 18, 2022), interesting not so much for the specific holdings but because of the insight the case provides into one of the more prevalent dynamics of modern MDLs. 2022 WL 171503, *1. First, plaintiffs complained about allegedly undisclosed opinion testimony offered by a defense expert.

Trials 59

Trials Testimonials Doctors Government 59

Drug & Device Law

JANUARY 11, 2022

In In re: Onglyza and Kombiglyze XR Products Liability Litigation , MDL 2809, 2022 WL 43244 (E.D. 5, 2022), the MDL judge bifurcated discovery into two phases with general causation proceeding first. Defendants’ first expert was an endocrinologist – the type of doctor who treats diabetes. citation omitted).

Drugs 40

Drugs Trials Doctors Testimonials 40