Two interesting headlines in the latest BNA Expert Evidence Report:
(1) “Silicosis Diagnoses Were ‘Manufactured,’Court Finds, Recommends Mass Dismissal.” For more on this story, see Ted Frank’s PointofLaw entry.
(2) “Suit Says Animal Tests Were Unreliable When Epidemiological Data Was Available.” A Vioxx plaintiff is arguing that Merck should not be able to rely on animal data showing Vioxx’s safety in the face of contradictory human clinical data. The interesting aspect of this case is that 99% of the time, it’s plaintiffs who are arguing that animal data should be admitted in the face of contradictory human data. Indeed, the plaintiffs in this case(Tufford v. Merck) are relying on decisions disallowing the use of animal tests by plaintiffs to prove causation.
Comments are closed.