Drug & Device Law

JUNE 1, 2023

We think that they can, and for a state (like Pennsylvania and a number of others) that still follows the “ Frye ” standard looking to the “general acceptance” of expert testimony as the touchstone to admissibility, a Rule 702 state-law equivalent might look something like this: Rule 702. E.g. , Walsh v. BASF Corp. , 3d 446, 461 (Pa.

Testimonials 59

Testimonials Trials Science Government 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. Instead, it looked to Pennsylvania’s ultimate requirement of proof of expert testimony to prove a prescription drug (!!!) Atrium Medical Corp. , — F. 3d –, 2022 WL 3357485 (E.D. Wyeth , 85 A.3d 3d 434 (Pa.

Production 59

Production Testimonials Trials Marketing 59

Drug & Device Law

JANUARY 15, 2024

A fourth Justice concurred in the result, treating the issue of standards compliance in Sullivan as a matter of evidence, and holding that the lack of a sufficient trial record supporting the relevance of the specific standards at issue in Sullivan meant that the trial judge’s exclusion was not an abuse of discretion. Ethicon, Inc. ,

Compliance 52

Compliance Government FDA Compliance Production 52

Drug & Device Law

DECEMBER 28, 2023

While Frye was seen as a high bar at the start, by the 1980s, a cadre of practitioners of the ancient art of junk science were routinely permitted to offer medical causation opinions at trial despite general causation being anything but generally accepted. at *23-29. The only thing missing was accusing the defendants of buying the science.

Testimonials 52

Testimonials FDA Science Drugs 52

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. 3d 179, 181-87 (D.

Testimonials 59

Testimonials Regulations Research International 59

Drug & Device Law

FEBRUARY 25, 2022

We return to a theme we’ve repeated twice before, in 2011 and in 2014 – that in addition to industry-specific groups, manufacturers of prescription medical products should definitely consider joining the Product Liability Advisory Council (“PLAC”). Notice how admissibility of expert testimony under Fed. 19-2899 (8th Cir. filed Sept.

Testimonials 59

Testimonials Production Drugs Pharmaceuticals 59

Drug & Device Law

DECEMBER 5, 2022

Ultimately, the thumb that Freeman put on the scale didn’t matter, because the defendant won at trial despite that handicap. The Superior Court here “credited testimony from doctors who never implanted mesh, or who did so outside the state of California.” at 27 (testimony that “large” amount of material had to be “recycl[ed]”).

Testimonials 64

Testimonials Doctors Production Trials 64

Drug & Device Law

DECEMBER 20, 2023

So we got this prosecution, a trial, a verdict, and some interesting motions. After a thirty day jury trial, the two executives were found guilty of multiple misdemeanor violations of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, but were acquitted of the felony accounts. The trial court refused to give such an instruction.

Trials 52

Trials FDA Production Testimonials 52

Drug & Device Law

MARCH 9, 2022

The issue in Robinson was the admissibility of testimony by the plaintiff’s regulatory expert. Thus, while the expert will have the opportunity at trial gleefully to trash the warnings provided to physicians, she cannot go further and hold forth about the alleged effect upon the patient’s informed consent. Score one for the good guys.

Testimonials 64

Testimonials FDA Doctors Regulations 64

Drug & Device Law

JUNE 23, 2023

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. at *34-35.

Testimonials 59

Testimonials Government Treatment Production 59

Drug & Device Law

FEBRUARY 23, 2022

The plaintiff wanted to focus on whether the warning was adequate, but the evidence (via some very good deposition testimony by the implanting physician) showed lack of proximate cause. The central issue was the testimony of the plaintiff’s medical expert. So much for the failure to warn claim. Now we get to the design defect claim.

Testimonials 59

Testimonials FDA Production Trials 59

Drug & Device Law

SEPTEMBER 9, 2022

317, 322 (1986), that summary judgment was mandated “against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party’s case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial.” Catrett , 477 U.S. The first is Larkin v. Pfizer, Inc. , 3d 758, 769-70 (Ky. 2002 WL 3696680, *6.

Doctors 59

Doctors Testimonials Production Trials 59

Drug & Device Law

FEBRUARY 3, 2022

We found the denial of the plaintiffs’ motion for new trial in Redick v. Redick is a case that made it past summary judgment and proceeded to trial in the summer of 2021. The plaintiff moved for new trial and there was further briefing after a deposition of an Australian researcher who did not testify at the trial.

Trials 59

Trials Testimonials Doctors Government 59