Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Avoiding the Adverse Effects of Causality Assessments

By Andrea E.K. Thomas and Joseph K. Scully
February 28, 2008

In the present climate of constant news reports of product recalls and runaway verdicts, pharmaceutical manufacturers are concerned about certain information that can infiltrate and unfairly influence product liability trials. Manufacturers should not have to worry that a court might permit a plaintiff to utilize the manufacturer's post-marketing surveillance data ' which is collected pursuant to governmental regulations and for the purpose of keeping manufacturers apprised of the possibility of an adverse effect associated with their product ' to prove actual causation. In addition, consumers should not have to worry about such legal disincentives impacting industry pharmacovigilance efforts. Post-marketing surveillance is absolutely critical to balancing the competing public policy concerns that favor speeding up the initial approval of useful drugs and assuring that only safe drugs reach the public.

Unfortunately, adverse drug reaction reports collected and causality assessments made in the course of post-marketing surveillance have increasingly become fodder for plaintiffs' attorneys attempting to prove causation. Courts, however, properly have precluded plaintiffs from presenting post-marketing surveillance materials, most recently refusing to allow plaintiffs to introduce company causality assessments based on adverse drug reaction reports as evidence of causation and from using these reports and assessments as bases for expert opinions on causation.

Adverse Drug Reaction Reports and Causality Assessments

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws Image

This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.

Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin Image

With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.

The Article 8 Opt In Image

The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.

Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York Image

In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?

Fresh Filings Image

Notable recent court filings in entertainment law.