The Pharma Data

MAY 13, 2021

day, the day you first heard your doctor. clinic, as well as teaching and supervising resident doctors. Your doctor may be putting on a brave face, but the. medical doctor with a lifetime of work. your doctor! you were to ask most doctors about ADRs, they would. life’s greatest experiences. .

Treatment 52

Treatment Doctors Production Disease 52

The Pharma Data

MAY 13, 2021

Doctors hate this advice. Simone urged him to go see a doctor. He was given a death sentence by his doctor. Near the nine month mark, Stamatis booked an appointment with his cancer doctor back in the States. The test results were so unusual, his doctor asked if he’d been taking experimental cancer drugs. “No,

Doctors 52

Doctors Production Research Science 52

Drug & Device Law

DECEMBER 29, 2023

2023) (remote trial testimony cannot be compelled beyond Rule 45’s 100-mile limit on subpoenas) ( here ); Carson v. They excluded bogus expert testimony under Fed. Further, “adequacy” is an objective standard, that neither a plaintiff’s self-interested testimony nor equivocal health care provider testimony can touch.

Testimonials 105

Testimonials FDA Drugs Vaccine 105

Drug & Device Law

JULY 24, 2023

Second, as for superiority, PATDC82 II admitted that a class trial would face “enormous logistical hurdles,” but nonetheless found a nationwide class action “superior.” Thus, “[o]ne supposed ‘nightmare’ trial is preferable to many hundreds of shorter ones.” 2023 WL 4191651, at *8. at *13 (citation omitted).

Testimonials 52

Testimonials Pharmacy FDA Doctors 52

Drug & Device Law

DECEMBER 28, 2022

Forward is more fun, as we scan a schedule full of motions, MDL decision-trees, and trials in, er, challenging jurisdictions. Enterprising plaintiff lawyers are exploiting the many residents of drug and device supply chains to gin up personal jurisdiction by finding local players (raw material suppliers, clinical trials, etc.)

Science 59

Science FDA Testimonials Hospitals 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

OCTOBER 20, 2022

While that may be true when it comes to trial judges and juries in certain parts of the state, the Texas Products Liability Act and much of the appellate case law applicable to product liability are pretty tight. 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

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.” It focused squarely on the doctor. Catrett , 477 U.S. The second was the decision below.

Doctors 59

Doctors Testimonials Production Trials 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. caused anything. 3d 87, 95 (Tex.

Testimonials 59

Testimonials Production Pharmaceuticals Drugs 59

Drug & Device Law

APRIL 29, 2022

The trial court denied the motion. On appeal, the intermediate appellate court affirmed, holding that “[the geologist’s] testimony about the amount of asbestos released. The defendant moved for JNOV, arguing that the verdict “was not supported by legally sufficient evidence as to causation.”

Testimonials 52

Testimonials International Production Doctors 52

Drug & Device Law

APRIL 6, 2022

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. The issue is whether a trial court has the moxy to draw lines and limit this clever expert’s testimony. Let’s go through the rulings.

Testimonials 52

Testimonials Production Trials Doctors 52

Drug & Device Law

MARCH 9, 2022

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. Texas March 2, 2022)— is a veritable mixed bag. We cannot decide whether to carry that bag from the car trunk to the kitchen table or just heave it in the dumpster.

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. An excellent example is the Sherman case, which involved junk science causation testimony in what we call a “toxic soup” chemical exposure case.

Testimonials 64

Testimonials Engineering Doctors Trials 64

Drug & Device Law

FEBRUARY 21, 2022

702 expert gatekeeping decisions bearing that caption, as Martinez approaches trial (scheduled for March 21, although the plaintiff has sought a continuance). Id. “None” of her “publications has any connection to “conducting clinical trials for medical devices or post marketing surveillance for medical products.” pelvic mesh case.

Testimonials 59

Testimonials Clinical Trials Production Trials 59

Drug & Device Law

FEBRUARY 9, 2022

Against the authority of the Mayo Clinic and other reputable sources, the plaintiffs relied on the testimony of a single doctor. That doctor had no relationship with the Mayo Clinic, which is significant because the Mayo Clinic is a closed hospital. None of that was the case with the plaintiffs’ expert. (So

Doctors 64

Doctors Hospitals Testimonials Treatment 64

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

Drug & Device Law

JANUARY 24, 2022

The Manual also discusses general issues concerning the presentation of video depositions of any sort at trial. Valsartan Testimony ¶1; accord Blackbaud ¶2; Davol ¶2. Valsartan Testimony ¶3. Numerous MDLs have entered orders authorizing remote depositions during the COVID-19 pandemic. 2972, Stipulated Order (D.S.C.

Pharmaceuticals 111

Pharmaceuticals Testimonials Trials Production 111

Drug & Device Law

JANUARY 11, 2022

At the request of the FDA, manufacturers conducted a cardiovascular outcomes study, a randomized controlled trial with multiple cardiac endpoints. Trials of other drugs in the class also failed to show an association. Defendants’ first expert was an endocrinologist – the type of doctor who treats diabetes. citation omitted).

Drugs 40

Drugs Trials Doctors Testimonials 40