Spears v. Taylor

How courts have described this case

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

• allowing former FDA official to offer expert testimony about the FDA regulatory process, but excluding her proposed testimony as to the existence of either causation or a causal association, or as to the drug company's knowledge, state of mind, intent, or motive
• “The Bradford Hill criteria are nine factors ‘widely used in the scientific community to assess general causation.’”
• “The court finds that Dr. Parisian is qualified, based on her experience at the FDA as a Medical Officer, to offer testimony about regulatory requirements for the testing, marketing, and development of prescription drugs.”
• “The court finds that Dr. Parisian is qualified, based on her experience at the FDA as a Medical Officer, to offer testimony about regulatory requirements for the testing, marketing, and development of prescription drugs.”
• “Dr. Hinshaw violated Rule 26, and did not put Novartis on notice, by failing to sufficiently provide the methods and bases that he alleges he used in opining on specific causation in his expert reports.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).