Dunn v. Sandoz Pharmaceuticals 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 one of the plaintiffs own witnesses “acknowledgefd] that adverse drug reaction case reports are of limited value in determining causation”
• remarking that ADE reports “are not controlled studies”, “cannot be verified through peer review”, “do not include information about the patient’s medical history”, and “are not scientific proof of causation”
• rejecting expert contention that \it is not necessary to have an epidemiological study that demonstrates an association as a prerequisite for applying the Bradford Hill criteria\
• rejecting an expert’s Bradford Hill-based testimony because he lacked evidence of an association but separately considering “whether [the plaintiff] can establish general causation independent of the Bradford Hill criteria”
• noting the expert whose causation testimony the court excluded stated the “scientific methodology that I use to assess causation is derived from the Bradford Hill Criteria” (internal quotation omitted)
• \The first step in the causation analysis pursuant to Bradford Hill is an epidemiological study that has identified an association between two variables.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).