![]() 2014) (conclusions about regulatory compliance) Monroe v. 2014) (legal conclusions that the defendant “violated the law”) Rowland v. Parisian’s Opinions That The Defendant Violated FDA Regulations: Kruszka v. 26, 2001) (legal opinion lack of qualifications no foundation speculation).Ĭases Excluding Dr. 21, 2007) (insufficient factual basis unreliable methodology), reconsideration denied, 2007 WL 1558717, at *2 (E.D. 2008) (erroneous admission of Parisian testimony required new trial on punitive damages narrative testimony, ipse dixit testimony not connected to FDA regulations), aff’d in pertinent part, reversed in part on other grounds, 586 F.3d 547, 571 (8th Cir. June 22, 2010) In re Prempro Products Liability Litigation, 554 F. ![]() 2010) (unqualified as to foreign regulations and medical causation narrative testimony ipse dixit corporate knowledge and intent FDA violation testimony conclusory and not tied to regulations opinions beyond scope of report improper reliance on internal documents lack of methodology speculation advocate not an expert), certification denied, 2010 WL 2541892 (S.D. 26, 2011) (legal conclusions conclusory improper state of mind/intent opinions narrative testimony bases not connected to conclusions ipse dixit speculative outside expertise) In re Trasylol Products Liability Litigation, 709 F. April 24, 2011) (FDA issues irrelevant unqualified as to industry standards) Lopez v. 10, 2011) (narrative testimony lack of methodology outside relevant time period) Hogan v. 4, 2011) (ipse dixit conclusory lack of methodology opinions not tied to FDA regulations or to facts irrelevant bases intent/state of mind outside scope of expertise outside relevant time period), reconsideration denied, 2011 WL 10501233 (S.D. ![]() March 29, 2012) (no coherent methodology unhelpful legal conclusions narrative testimony unqualified to give medical testimony ipse dixit reliance on after-the-fact events) Kaufman v. ![]() Parisian was allowed to testify about something.Ĭases Totally Excluding Dr. We caution, however, that unless a decision is in the first paragraph of this post, that means that Dr. As always, because we don’t believe in doing the other side’s research for them, we’re not listing topics on which she was allowed to testify. Parisian retiring appear to be greatly exaggerated, we thought it would be a good idea to update the post with additional Parisian-related Daubert rulings over the past three years.Īs before, we’re categorizing the exclusions by topic – indeed, we’ve added a couple of new topics − starting with those opinions that exclude her altogether as a witness, and working our way down. 2016) (“she has not treated a live patient since 1988 and has not practiced pathology since the 1990s”). See, e.g., In re Mirena IUD Products Liability Litigation, 169 F. We use quotation marks, because although Parisian is technically an MD, she hasn’t seen a single patient in decades. Back in 2013, we published a comprehensive post on the checkered Daubert history of the notorious and prolific (in equal amounts) plaintiff-side “FDA expert” (although she routinely attempts to opine way beyond FDA matters) – “Dr.” Suzanne Parisian.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |