This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
The Dearinger case in the Western District of Washington provided a lot of defense friendly blog fodder. We blogged about that decision here. Plaintiffs provided testimony from that physician suggesting that he would have changed his prescribing decision if presented with plaintiffs’ proposed warning language.
We’ve blogged several times already about the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. FDA litigation that is now before the Supreme Court. Congress created an FDAapproval process that is both rigorous and thorough, and pharmaceutical companies invest billions of dollars in research and development to meet FDA’s scientific standards.
2023) (remote trial testimony cannot be compelled beyond Rule 45’s 100-mile limit on subpoenas) ( here ); Carson v. This year’s Drug & Device Law Blog top ten decisions of the year reinforced preemption – the most powerful defense we can assert. They excluded bogus expert testimony under Fed. Bonta , 85 F.4th Monsanto Co. ,
But in prescription medical product liability litigation, products must receive FDAapproval, clearance or other authorization (hereafter, collectively referred to as “approval” for short) before they can be marketed. to determine whether a proposed alternative drug would have received FDAapproval.” at 237-38.
This post is from the non-Reed Smith side of the blog. Plaintiff argued the testimony was relevant to a risk/utility analysis but showing that a different medical procedure may be safer, “does not affect whether a product has utility and/or risks.” As long as they don’t, the door to this testimony remains closed. .
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 15,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content