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 proposed rule will identify certain bulk drug substances that FDA has considered and is proposing to place on the 503A Bulks List and certain bulk drug substances that FDA has considered and is proposing not to include on the 503A Bulks List.
12/29/2023 FDORA, Section 3602 Clinical Trials Modernization : FDA is directed to require the submission of a “diversity action plan” for all Phase 3 clinical trials of new drugs. FDA is directed to issue new draft guidance or update existing guidance regarding Diversity Action Plans for clinical studies.
12/29/2023 FDORA, Section 3602 Clinical Trials Modernization : FDA is directed to require the submission of a “diversity action plan” for all Phase 3 clinical trials of new drugs. FDA is directed to issue new draft guidance or update existing guidance regarding Diversity Action Plans for clinical studies.
2023) (remote trialtestimony cannot be compelled beyond Rule 45’s 100-mile limit on subpoenas) ( here ); Carson v. They excluded bogus expert testimony under Fed. The FDA requires real science for warnings; thus it had not mandated any warning remotely resembling Prop 65. Bonta , 85 F.4th 4th 1263 (9th Cir.
Shikada is the first appellate decision creating a state-law warning-based duty (here, via a consumer protection claim, brought by the state rather than anyone actually claiming injury) based solely on pharmacogenomics − racially/ethnically-based genetic variations − allegedly affecting the effectiveness of FDA-approved prescription drugs.
We acquired our trial chops in the Central District of California, where we were an AUSA. Not citing any case where such a distinction had been recognized, the Burton court held the difference between SJS and TEN, and the significance of such difference, to be questions of fact “that will require medical expert testimony to resolve.”
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. But that conclusion is premature.
In two of these cases, our client won summary judgment at the trial court level and an appellate court ended up creating a new cause of action to accommodate the plaintiff’s theory (and lack of helpful testimony from the prescribing physician). 2023 WL 2386776, *3. citing Gross v. Pfizer, Inc. ,
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 is the causation variant that we described here as “ not quite physician failure to read ,” since the pertinent testimony was in the nature of a failure to remember reading the relevant information rather than an absolute “never read it” from the implanter. It is undisputed here that the filter received FDAapproval.
The trial court granted summary judgment based on evidence that the implanting surgeon “would have used the clips in the surgery even if he had received such a warning” and thus plaintiff “could not prove the cause element of his claims.” Even then Rennick ’s rationale didn’t do a very good job.
702 – that they were not qualified, their testimony was not based on sufficient facts or data, their methodologies were not reliable, and they did not reliably apply their methodologies to the facts of the case. their testimony does not present a genuine issue of medical fact.” Motion to Exclude Experts. emphasis in original).
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