Brumbaugh v. Sandoz Pharmaceutical Corp.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that the most significant analytical defect of case reports is that they “don’t isolate and investigate the effects of alternative causation agents... [tjhey reflect reported data, not scientific methodology.”
• noting that the most significant analytical defect of case reports is that they “don’t isolate and investigate the effects of alternative causation agents, [t]hey reflect reported data, not scientific methodology”
• excluding plaintiffs expert’s testimony regarding Parlodel® because, inter alia no proof was presented to support his “causal mechanism theory”
• “Testimony extending general conclusions about ... drugs [similar to bromocriptine] does not meet Dau-bert’s requirement of reliability.”
• “[hjere, the limited probative worth of Dr. Iffy’s testimony is outweighed by the substantial probability of misleading the jury so the evidence is inadmissible pursuant to Fed.R.Evid. 403”
• \Testimony extending general conclusions about similar drugs does not meet Daubert's requirement of reliability.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).