Soldo 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.

• concluding adverse drug events do not constitute reliable support for experts’ causation opinions
• excluding experts \[b]ecause consistency is a hallmark of the scientific method [and] plaintiff's experts must be required to satisfy their own standards of reliability\
• noting biological plausibility is one of the Bradford-Hill criteria used to evaluate general causation when there is a demonstrated epidemiological association
• explaining Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 593, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993)
• explaining evidence about the “effect of allegedly ‘similar’ [products] on the body” does not fit because it is no “substitute for direct evidence about the [product] in question”
• noting epidemiology is “by its very nature ‘testable,’” because it has “methods and standards” and that its “very purpose” is serving the “type of testing function required by Daubert”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).