Drug & Device Law

AUGUST 8, 2022

Apparently, a fraudulent foreign-trained “doctor” treated the plaintiffs, none of whom claimed malpractice or any physical injury whatsoever. Ohio 2007) (“courts have repeatedly held that trade associations, themselves, have no duty to users of products in that trade”); Commerce & Industry Insurance Co. 4th 259 (3d Cir.

Doctors 52

Doctors Fraud Licensing Compliance 52

Drug & Device Law

JUNE 6, 2022

They’re experienced at what they do and aren’t intimidated by plaintiffs’ counsel and their threats of malpractice claims if they don’t testify the way plaintiffs want them to. procedure that existed at the time of [plaintiff’s] injury”; malpractice was “intervening cause”) (applying Kansas law); Eck v. 2007 WL 2526402, at *3 (D.

FDA 59

FDA Doctors Malpractice Medical Personnel 59

Drug & Device Law

JUNE 13, 2023

2007) (citation omitted). Second, the circuit court must ensure that the scientific testimony is relevant to the task at hand. San Francisco v. Wendy’s International, Inc. , 2d 485, 493 (W. See, Otto v. PLLC , 850 S.E.2d 2d 708, 715 (W.

Malpractice 59

Malpractice 59

Drug & Device Law

APRIL 10, 2023

2007); Syms v. 2007); Hunt v. 2007 WL 4570421, at *1-2 (D. 21, 2007); Avila v. CNH America LLC , 2007 WL 2688613, at *1-2 (D. CNH America LLC , 2007 WL 2688613, at *1-2 (D. 2007); Priselac v. Buckley , 521 U.S. 424, 439-40 (1997); June v. Union Carbide Corp., 3d 1234, 1249-51 (10th Cir. Olin Corp. ,

Malpractice 59

Malpractice Governance Hospitals 59

Drug & Device Law

DECEMBER 11, 2023

That started us thinking about other uses of severance of non-indispensable parties to preserve diversity – particularly, as in the Rejuvenate case, medical malpractice defendants in product liability litigation – to preserve federal diversity jurisdiction. We most recently returned to this issue here , where we discussed Sullivan v.

Malpractice 102

Malpractice Hospitals Doctors 102