Search for: "Accutane Litigation" Results 101 - 120 of 121
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
13 Jun 2008, 12:12 pm
We cannot conclude that [defendant] had a duty to withhold. . .a medication her doctor determined was an appropriate treatment for her unless [plaintiff] agreed to the use of contraceptive techniques that may have violated her religious principles.Id. at 1241 (Accutane birth defects case). [read post]
27 Mar 2007, 11:29 pm
Evid. 502 - an update (5/30/07)"Relatedness" assessments (In re Accutane) (5/28/07)Preemption lite (5/24/07)Riegel v. [read post]
18 Feb 2010, 12:05 am
The award is the largest that an Accutane user has won against the drugmaker. [read post]
5 Apr 2015, 7:50 pm by Schachtman
Pa. 2014) (excluding perinatal epidemiologist, Anick Bérard, for biased cherry picking of data points); In re Accutane, No. 271(MCL), 2015 WL 753674, 2015 BL 59277 (N.J.Super. [read post]
28 Dec 2012, 1:57 pm by Bexis
  Physicians have no duty of loyalty requiring them to support their patients in litigation. [read post]
20 Aug 2008, 4:42 pm
One judge grants a Daubert motion, holding that the evidence linking Accutane to inflammatory bowel disease is junk science, inadmissible in a court of law. [read post]
4 Oct 2021, 11:06 am by Neal S. Gainsberg
Some drugs that have been the subject of litigation and/or recalls in the past include: Accutane Celebrex Crestor Ephedra Meridia Paxil Provigil Serevent Serzone Vioxx At Gainsberg Law P.C., our Chicago medical malpractice lawyers work with experienced pharmacists and medication experts who understand when other pharmacists acted incompetently and when medications are defective. [read post]
16 Sep 2016, 2:02 pm by Schachtman
Judge Johnson obviously had a good epidemiology teacher in Professor Stephen Goodman, who testified in the Accutane case. [read post]
22 May 2021, 12:04 pm by admin
The gravamen of the defense’s appeal was that these expert witnesses had failed to support their opinions and that the trial judge had misapplied the established judicial gatekeeping procedures required by the New Jersey Supreme Court, in In re Accutane Litigation, 234 N.J. 340 (2018). [read post]
7 Jun 2007, 10:52 am
., 289 F.3d 1193, 1211 (10th Cir. 2002) (ADEs "contain only limited information" and are "unreliable evidence of causation"); In re: Accutane Products Liability Litigation, 2007 WL 1288354, at *3 (M.D. [read post]
31 Dec 2015, 5:12 am
  Thus some inordinately long-running litigation (more than seven years) finally came to an end. [read post]
21 Feb 2014, 8:53 am
”  In re Fosamax Products Liability Litigation, 2013 WL 174416, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. [read post]
12 Sep 2008, 10:24 am
Fla. 1996), aff’d, 158 F. 3d 588 (11th Cir. 1998); In re Accutane Products Liability Litig., 511 F. [read post]
1 Jun 2007, 9:22 am
From settlement to verdict: In New Jersey, an Accutane trial has resulted in a $2.6M award for inflammatory bowel disease, based on a failure to warn of the disease, according to Tom Lamb at his Drug Injury Watch;And finally a little weekend reading:From Kevin, M.D.: The best anti-smoking ad ever created.From Sheila Scheuerman at TortsProf, top 10 downloads for papers posted on the Social Science Research Network for the last three months in the Journal of Torts & Products… [read post]
9 Nov 2015, 7:09 am
 For instance, notwithstanding its eventual total victory, the maker of Accutane was forced to withdraw that drug from the market in 2009 due to the litigation cost of defending claims over purported side effects that either didn’t exist or were adequately warned about. [read post]
1 Feb 2013, 9:42 am by Bexis
Aug. 20, 2012) (“federal law requires a generic drug to be of the same design as its brand name counterpart”); In re: Accutane Products Liability Litigation, 2012 WL 3194952, at *2 (M.D. [read post]
12 Dec 2021, 2:22 pm by admin
Litig., 858 F.3d 787, 793 (3d Cir. 2017) (affirming exclusion of causation expert witness) Magistrini v. [read post]
11 Sep 2015, 3:23 pm by Schachtman
Since expert testimony has become a mainstay of both civil and criminal litigation, this failure to communicate creates a conundrum in which jurists insist on testimony that experts are not capable of giving, and scientists attempt to conform their testimony to what the courts demand, often well beyond the limits of their expertise. [read post]