Category Archives: Daubert

Third Circuit Affirms Summary Judgment for Pfizer in Zoloft MDL

A Third Circuit Court of Appeals panel recently upheld a lower court’s decision to dismiss plaintiffs’ claims at summary judgment in a multi-district litigation involving Zoloft, an anti-depressant manufactured by Pfizer. The MDL involved 315 plaintiffs alleging that Zoloft causes cardiac birth defects when taken during early pregnancy. The decision, which upheld an earlier ruling by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, has both good and bad aspects for defendants facing pharmaceutical product liability claims. The plaintiffs introduced several expert witnesses…

Continue Reading....

Zoloft MDL Excludes on Daubert Grounds Plaintiffs’ Experts’ Opinions on General Causation

Last month the Pennsylvania federal judge presiding over the multi-district litigation in which the plaintiffs allege that the prescription anti-depressant Zoloft, taken during pregnancy, causes birth defects, issued another in an series of Daubert rulings on the plaintiffs’ proposed experts as to general causation. Although the defendant conceded the qualifications of the three research scientists whose expert evidence was being tested, the reliability of their general causation opinions was hotly contested and received a full evidentiary hearing. The Zoloft court’s rulings represent an important addition…

Continue Reading....

Eleventh Circuit Rejects Plaintiff’s Expert Evidence on Daubert Grounds

An important and interesting Daubert opinion was issued yesterday by the 11th Circuit which affirmed the trial court’s Daubert preclusion order against the plaintiff’s experts in litigation seeking to prove that the use of a denture adhesive causes neurological disease.  The decision sets forth the infirmities in the plaintiffs’ expert evidence under Daubert standards. This blog post will be short and reportorial, rather than analytic, because the authors have worked extensively for the defense in the denture cream litigation, and on the Chapman case itself,…

Continue Reading....

Court Refuses to Scrutinize the Sufficiency of Differential Diagnosis Analysis and Permits Causation Testimony in Absence of Controlled Studies

This past week, an Ohio federal court considered under Daubert the standard by which specific causation experts in drug and device cases are to be scrutinized. While the Court precluded the opinions of certain experts who did not engage in a differential diagnosis analysis before forming specific causation opinions, it stopped short of precluding one expert who engaged in what was essentially an incomplete differential diagnosis analysis, concluding the sufficiency of the analysis goes to the weight of the evidence and not its reliability under…

Continue Reading....