Search for: "In Re Silicone Gel Breast Implant"
Results 41 - 57
of 57
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
28 Jul 2015, 11:52 am
” (In re Silicone Gel Breast Implant Prod. [read post]
5 Jun 2013, 5:29 am
Supp. 1151, 1160 (E.D.La. 1997) (noting, in penile implant case, that “any” increased risk suggests that the exposure “may” have played some causal role) In re Breast Implant Litigation, 11 F. [read post]
18 Mar 2011, 10:04 am
August 16, 2001) (excluding causation opinion testimony given contrary epidemiologic studies; noting that sufficient epidemiologic evidence requires relative risk greater than two) In re Silicone Gel Breast Implant Litig., 318 F. [read post]
2 May 2013, 9:23 am
In the silicone-gel breast implant litigation, the plaintiffs’ steering committee submitted banker boxes of studies and argument to the court’s appointed expert witnesses, in an attempt to manufacture causation. [read post]
14 Aug 2011, 9:11 am
In the silicone gel breast implant litigation, for instance, plaintiffs relied upon a collection of studies that looked very plausible from their peer-reviewed publications. [read post]
12 Dec 2021, 2:22 pm
Supp. 2d 992, 1199–1200 (E.D.N.Y. 2006), rev’d on other grounds, 522 F.3d 215 (2d Cir. 2008) (describing confounding in studies of low-tar cigarettes, where authors failed to account for confounding and assessing healthier life styles in users) Third Circuit In re Zoloft Prods. [read post]
4 May 2013, 3:17 pm
Robbins is a member of SKAPP, the organization started with plaintiffs’ counsel’s slush fund money diverted from MDL 926, the silicone-gel breast implant litigation. [read post]
23 Feb 2020, 9:54 am
Nor does Smith delve into how Swan sought to reprise her performance in the silicone gel breast implant litigation, only to be booted by several judges as an expert witness. [read post]
9 Apr 2016, 8:58 am
In re Zoloft Prod. [read post]
19 Mar 2022, 2:09 pm
Risk assessments would seemingly be about assessing risks, but they are not. [read post]
15 Sep 2022, 1:24 pm
Edward K. [read post]
25 Apr 2015, 11:03 am
The first edition of the Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence [Manual] was published in 1994, a year after the Supreme Court delivered its opinion in Daubert. [read post]
10 Feb 2023, 4:44 am
Putting aside the idiosyncratic chapter by the late Professor Berger, most of the third edition of the Reference Manual presented guidance on many important issues. [read post]
12 Jun 2023, 1:09 pm
In scientific publishing, when scientists make a mistake, they publish an erratum or a corrigendum. [read post]
23 Jan 2020, 10:37 pm
The phosphodiesterases 5 inhibitor medications (PDE5i) seem to arouse the litigation propensities of the lawsuit industry. [read post]
23 Dec 2023, 7:16 pm
Joiner had can cause small-cell lung cancer.[13] Perhaps the most egregious lapses in scholarship occur when Ranges, a newly minted scientist, and her co-author, a full professor of law, write: “For example, Bendectin, an antinausea medication prescribed to pregnant women, caused a slew of birth defects (hence its nickname ‘The Second Thalidomide’).49”[14] I had to re-read this sentence many times to make sure I was not hallucinating. [read post]
13 Apr 2024, 3:33 pm
Prelude to Litigation Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) was a widely used direct α-adrenergic agonist used as a medication to control cold symptoms and to suppress appetite for weight loss.[1] In 1972, an over-the-counter (OTC) Advisory Review Panel considered the safety and efficacy of PPA-containing nasal decongestant medications, leading, in 1976, to a recommendation that the agency label these medications as “generally recognized as safe and effective. [read post]
