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 15, 2024

That is significant because, unlike (now) every other state in the country, since 1987 Pennsylvania precedent prohibited defendants from introducing evidence of their compliance with government and/or industry standards (“standards compliance” or “compliance” evidence, for short) in strict liability design defect cases – generally.

Compliance 52

Compliance Government FDA Compliance Production 52

Drug & Device Law

DECEMBER 29, 2023

2023) (federal government may unilaterally obtain dismissal of FCA claims, and calling the constitutionality of the FCA’s private enforcement mechanism into question) ( here ); Quishenberry v. 2023) (remote trial testimony cannot be compelled beyond Rule 45’s 100-mile limit on subpoenas) ( here ); Carson v. Polansky v.

Testimonials 105

Testimonials FDA Drugs Vaccine 105

Drug & Device Law

FEBRUARY 20, 2023

Yet another vaccine case addressed at length the reasons why viable design alternatives for products governed by the FDCA must be limited to those that the FDA has allowed onto the market. 7, 2022), which addressed the same question in the context of the admissibility of expert testimony. 2d 839, 851 (N.Y. Ethicon, Inc. ,

FDA 59

FDA FDA Approval Testimonials Vaccine 59

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. 11-17 (Jan. It got worse. quoting 45 C.F.R.

Testimonials 59

Testimonials Regulations Research International 59

Drug & Device Law

DECEMBER 20, 2023

Nevertheless, according to the government, the company went ahead and marketed the device for the unapproved steroid delivery application. After the verdict, the defendants filed post trial motions challenging the convictions as violations of the executives’ first amendment rights. The trial court refused to give such an instruction.

FDA 52

FDA Trials Production Testimonials 52

Drug & Device Law

MARCH 4, 2022

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).

Testimonials 59

Testimonials FDA Approval FDA Regulations 59