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
Increasingly, patients and patient-led organizations are playing a pivotal role in shaping drug development, underscoring the importance of collaboration between patient organizations, CROs, and pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies. Discover more about this industry shift in our blog.
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.
We’ve blogged several times already about the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. 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 litigation that is now before the Supreme Court.
I am Susanna Moldoveanu , and I practice with Butler Snow LLP’s Pharmaceutical, Medical Device and Healthcare group. I am excited to join the Drug & Device Law Blogging Team. A more fulsome discussion of the Washington Supreme Court’s answer is on the Blog. Plaintiffs had no evidence to rebut the treater’s clear testimony.
2023) (remote trial testimony cannot be compelled beyond Rule 45’s 100-mile limit on subpoenas) ( here ); Carson v. 2023) (HHS cannot force pharmaceutical manufacturers to sell unlimited amounts of prescription drugs at a discount) ( here ). They excluded bogus expert testimony under Fed. Bonta , 85 F.4th 4th 1263 (9th Cir.
As readers of the Blog undoubtedly know , the amendments toughening up Fed. Testimony by expert witnesses. But it remains the case that other admissibility requirements in the rule (such as that the expert must be qualified and the expert’s testimony must help the trier of fact) are governed by the Rule 104(a) standard as well.
It had filed an amicus brief with the Second Circuit and its post-decision press release headline was “In WLF Success, Second Circuit Affirms Exclusion of an unreliable Causation Evidence in Pharmaceutical Case.” In addition, we blogged about the district court order here. Plus, the case involves some lawyers we know and respect.
We’ve blogged before about the plaintiffs’ self-defeating “injury” definition in the Taxotere mass tort litigation. Plaintiff Adams’ “sworn testimony and plaintiff fact sheet” established that she blew the statute of limitations by some eight years. This wasn’t a close case. And hair loss is a well-known consequence of chemotherapy.
In the “ 50-State Survey of State Court Decisions Supporting Expert-Related Judicial Gatekeeping ,” the Drug & Device Law Blog (the Best Blog on the Planet) describes West Virginia as a “gatekeeper” state because of cases reflecting adoption of the Daubert analysis of W. 702 by the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.
The court in Wolfe refused to impose a negligence duty on the defendant pharmaceutical company to develop and obtain FDA approval of the plaintiff’s non-FDA-approved alternative. 7, 2022), which addressed the same question in the context of the admissibility of expert testimony. His testimony is thus irrelevant and inadmissible.
What follows is from the non-Dechert side of the Blog. Reliance on “animal data” – another notorious and frequent error common in unreliable expert testimony. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. , 3d 1152 (S.D. Peculiar methodology (not results) that is not “generally accepted.”. at *167 (quoting Glastetter v. 3d 986, 991 (8th Cir.
We continue to believe that PLAC membership helps pharmaceutical and medical device defendants litigate stronger (through inter-industry cooperation on shared issues of concern), smarter (through cutting edge CLE and webinars), and more efficiently (utilizing PLAC’s online knowledge base and other resources). Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
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