Glastetter v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that FDA actions regarding Parlodel ® do not establish reliability of plaintiffs’ experts’ causation opinions
• stating that Dr. Kulig could not point to any statistieally-significant study demonstrating an association between Parlodel ® and stroke
• excluding Dr. Kulig’s testimony and stating that he “does not know the mechanism by which bromocriptine causes seizure”
• rejecting Dr. Kulig’s and Dr. Petro’s reliance on case reports because, inter alia, these reports do not take into account postpartum incidence of stroke
• rejecting reliance on case reports “in light of the case law discussing case reports and the testimony of plaintiffs’ experts” which downplayed their reliance on them in establishing general causation
• rejecting reliance on case reports “in light of the case law discussing case reports and the testimony of plaintiffs’ experts” which downplayed their reliance on them in establishing general causation

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).