The Pharma Data
MAY 13, 2021
Testimonials are not necessarily representative of all of those who will use our products. Some of our testimonials are provided by customers who have received promotional offers in exchange for their participation. The testimonials displayed are given verbatim except for correction of grammatical or typing errors. Neuroreport.
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.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Drug & Device Law
JULY 24, 2023
341 (2001). This time-tested type of evidence is mostly absent from the analysis in PATDC82 II – as in Neurontin , the only actual prescriber testimony belied plaintiffs’ position. It is not clear that [defendants] will − or even can − avail themselves of a TPP-by-TPP causation defense using doctor-by-doctor testimony.
Drug & Device Law
MAY 30, 2022
The prescriber’s] testimony, however, does not establish that he would have altered his prescribing conduct. Given this testimony, the plaintiffs could not “show that stronger manufacturer warnings would have altered the physician’s prescribing conduct.” Plaintiff] has not identified any testimony from [the prescriber] that. . .
Drug & Device Law
FEBRUARY 20, 2023
151, 163-68 (2001)) (lengthy discussion of FDA regulatory process omitted). 7, 2022), which addressed the same question in the context of the admissibility of expert testimony. Therefore, Davis excluded as “not relevant” expert testimony about non-FDA-approved alternatives. His testimony is thus irrelevant and inadmissible.
Drug & Device Law
DECEMBER 27, 2022
Reliance on “animal data” – another notorious and frequent error common in unreliable expert testimony. Relying on the grossly excessive ranitidine exposure lab tests previously excluded for their bizarre results and shoddy methodologies. Peculiar methodology (not results) that is not “generally accepted.”. at *167 (quoting Glastetter v.
Drug & Device Law
FEBRUARY 11, 2024
19, 2021) (admitting and excluding Studnicki testimony); Whole Woman’s Health Alliance v. 341, 351 (2001) (rejecting the “sort of litigation [that] would exert an extraneous pull on the scheme established by Congress”). See , e.g. , Whole Woman’s Health Alliance v. Rokita , 2021 WL 650589, at *12-17 (Mag. Buckman Co.
Expert insights. Personalized for you.
52 
Let's personalize your content