RIDER V. SANDOZ PHARMACEUTICALS CORPORATION
295 F.3d 1194 (2002)
NATURE OF THE CASE: Rider (P) appealed a decision which granted summary judgment to
Sandoz (D) by excluding proffered expert testimony regarding causation showing that
ingestion of D's medication caused P to suffer hemorrhagic strokes.
FACTS: Ps both took the drug Parlodel to suppress lactation after childbirth. Both women
suffered hemorrhagic strokes. P sued D alleging that Parlodel caused their hemorrhagic
strokes. After discovery, D moved to exclude the opinions and testimony of Ps' experts on
causation. The district court held a Daubert hearing to determine whether the evidence was
admissible. The court drew a careful distinction between clinical process, in which
conclusions must be extrapolated from incomplete data, and the scientific method, in which
conclusions must be drawn from an accepted process, and concluded that the Ps' experts were
relying on the former. The district court excluded the evidence and granted summary judgment
to D. P appealed.
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner
No comments:
Post a Comment