Herrmann represents clients too deeply involved in the subject matter of this post for him to speak on these subjects. He thus had nothing to do with today’s post; what you’re getting here is pure, unadulterated Bexis.
Contrary to what you might think, we don’t just read case law and ALI drafts – and no,
Here’s what has us ticked off today.
(It’s a good thing something has us ticked off. Otherwise, where would we find the inspiration to write?)
The rules of evidence governing hearsay create an inequity in pharmaceutical product liability cases. Here’s how:
At trial, plaintiff offers into evidence scientific articles that say the defendant’s drug is
We don’t try to provide breaking news on this blog. It’s beyond our capacity — if we want to keep our day jobs, as practicing lawyers.
But we sure do like to kibbitz.
Here goes.
On Wednesday, Eli Lilly & Co. released the results of a survey of 402 psychiatrists who treat patients with bipolar
The popular press picked up yesterday on a news item that folks defending antidepressant cases have known for a while. First, the backstory: A couple of years ago, the FDA required pharmaceutical manufacturers to add warnings about pediatric suicidality to the labels of their prescription antidepressants. Now, yesterday’s news: Adding those warnings may have discouraged
Science affects law, but law also affects science. As litigators, we often think about the former; we less often think about the latter.
A recent article in Neurology journal, written by two physicians and two lawyers, bemoans “The impact of litigation on neurologic research.” The article discusses a couple of cases in which litigants have