Photo of Bexis

They do the can-can in Paris – but Suzanne Parisian can’t – can’t testify as an expert in the Trasylol MDL.  This is one of those opinions when it’s best to start at the end:

Plainly stated, Dr. Parisian is an advocate, presented with the trappings of an expert but with no expectation or intention of abiding the opinion constraints of Rule 702.  She comes armed with a Report designed to be broad enough to allow her to gather and stack inference upon inference in order to offer her “takeaway” or “take home message” with respect to intent, knowledge, or causation in a manner unrelated to any regulatory expertise.  Her testimony is unreliable and would not be of assistance to the jury.

In re Trasylol Products Liability Litigation, slip op. at 40-41 (S.D. Fla. April 27, 2010).
What subjects, specifically, was Dr. Parisian precluded from opining about?

  • Foreign regulatory actions; slip op. at 17.
  • Historical summary and comments on specific documents; slip op. at 18, 22-23, 33-35.
  • Claimed violations of FDA regulations; slip op. at 38-39.
  • What the FDA knew at various times; slip op. at 18-19, 35.
  • Corporate knowledge/intent; slip op. at 20-21, 34-35.
  • Ethical standards for drug companies (“bad company” opinions); slip op. at 21-22.
  • Pure, utter speculation; slip op. at 39-40.

The opinion also features an extended dissection of Dr. Parisian’s performance on cross examination that will warm the cockles of the hearts of every defense counsel ever to have encountered the good doctor on the stand.  See slip op. at 23-31.  Enjoy!