Remove Blog Remove FDA Approval Remove Testimonials
article thumbnail

Last Nail in the Coffin for Dearinger

Drug & Device Law

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.

article thumbnail

Another Reason Why The FDA, Not Litigants, Approves Products

Drug & Device Law

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 FDA approval process that is both rigorous and thorough, and pharmaceutical companies invest billions of dollars in research and development to meet FDA’s scientific standards.

FDA 59
Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

article thumbnail

The BFDs – The Ten Best Prescription Drug/Medical Device Decisions of 2023

Drug & Device Law

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. ,

article thumbnail

The FDA and Feasible Alternative Designs

Drug & Device Law

But in prescription medical product liability litigation, products must receive FDA approval, 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 FDA approval.” at 237-38.

FDA 59
article thumbnail

Two Strikes Against Plaintiff’s Experts in Texas Pelvic Mesh Case

Drug & Device Law

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. .