Drug & Device Law

JULY 24, 2023

at *6 (plaintiff “has documents and formularies reaching back to only 2009”). 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. First, the class plaintiff got away with destruction of evidence.

Testimonials

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. . .

Testimonials

Drug & Device Law

FEBRUARY 20, 2023

7, 2022), which addressed the same question in the context of the admissibility of expert testimony. were not approved by the FDA in 2009. . . . Because these designs had not been used or tested, they were not technologically feasible in 2009. His testimony is thus irrelevant and inadmissible. Ethicon, Inc. , See Davis v.

FDA

Drug & Device Law

FEBRUARY 25, 2022

case ( Conte ) in 2009. The defendant first sought PLAC’s help on en banc rehearing, after suffering a loss on admission of expert testimony that we considered to be the worst decision of 2021. Notice how admissibility of expert testimony under Fed. The appeal remains pending. Bausch & Lomb, Inc. , SC20607 (Conn.

Testimonials

Drug & Device Law

SEPTEMBER 25, 2023

Assuming the expert testimony doesn’t change, the defendant essentially gets a do-over. Not surprisingly the once and future exclusion of the plaintiffs’ expert testimony loomed large in this ginned-up dispute. It’s obvious to us what is going on here. So they tried to invent grounds for recusal from whole cloth. 455(a)).

Testimonials

Drug & Device Law

MARCH 4, 2024

Plaintiffs will not be heard to argue that they “could have shored up their cases by other means had they known their expert testimony would be found inadmissible.” His inability to produce admissible expert testimony is due to his own actions, namely the failure of his proposed experts to test their alternatives. Weisgram v.

Testimonials

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. 2009), reversed a plaintiff’s verdict for entry of judgment n.o.v. Medrano , 28 S.W.3d

Testimonials

Drug & Device Law

JANUARY 15, 2024

2019), analogously held that the standard for admission of expert testimony was “procedural” and therefore Pennsylvania’s Frye rule applied, not Texas’ stricter expert admissibility standard. 2009) (en banc), decided before Tincher adopted consumer expectations as a Pennsylvania design defect test. Ford Motor Co. , 2d 524, 544 (Pa.

Compliance

Drug & Device Law

SEPTEMBER 9, 2022

For instance, plaintiffs in the vast majority of cases know that they will need evidence from a prescribing physician, testimony or affidavit for summary judgment and testimony for trial. It started by criticizing the court below for “focus[ing] solely on Dr. Guiler’s testimony” based on quoting part of the second sentence above.

Doctors

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. 22 (S.D.N.Y.

Testimonials

Drug & Device Law

MARCH 9, 2023

Citing a range of Tennessee cases, the Campbell court rejected plaintiff’s argument with “it is only the Plaintiffs who are required to present expert testimony to establish causation in cases where the plaintiff has suffered a complex medical injury.” A relative risk of exactly 2.0 But we digress from our digression. LEXIS 31015, *5-6.

Testimonials