tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4241416962008169508.post3934823822530206609..comments2024-03-17T09:40:53.611-04:00Comments on Just A Life Sciences Blog...: And, A NON-Trivial Update: Merck's Federal Propecia®/Proscar® MDL...Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4241416962008169508.post-44263937819935804422017-05-12T08:40:41.651-04:002017-05-12T08:40:41.651-04:00Makes sense. Thanks for the insight. I feel like...Makes sense. Thanks for the insight. I feel like I'm ready to take the final now! :)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4241416962008169508.post-56203675154931623782017-05-11T15:11:52.429-04:002017-05-11T15:11:52.429-04:00Hello Anon. --
Now. . . I am speaking entirely a...Hello Anon. --<br /><br />Now. . . I am speaking entirely as to a <b>hypothetical</b> "law school products liability/medical mal Final Exam" sort of case -- not <b>this</b> particular one, or any particular baldness treatment side effects case or claim.<br /><br />With that out of the way, the issue is -- under existing case law -- in order to make out a good claim for recovery, one must provide expert testimony that the harm the plaintiff suffered more likely than not occurred due to a specific "<i>mechanism of action</i>" -- one that can be explained by the drug or treatment's documented "on target, or off target," effects.<br /><br />In this regard, what's often called "<i>but for</i>" causation is not enough. That is, simply showing the time line you've described doesn't rule out -- or even make less-likely -- any <i>competing</i> explanation for the injury. [That is what all of this is about -- this coming summer.]<br /><br />It is well known that some cancer drugs cause impotence. So, for example, a plaintiff's expert must be able to testify that based on the expert's familiarity with the case, that the particular plaintiff was not ever on cancer meds -- of that sort.<br /><br />I hope this helps (a little!), and I am sorry that I must answer rather obliquely, but I do have professional obligations here.<br /><br />Namaste -- do stop back!condorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11014613306197942748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4241416962008169508.post-5108613977038706622017-05-11T13:39:39.369-04:002017-05-11T13:39:39.369-04:00This is interesting. Love to hear some more thoug...This is interesting. Love to hear some more thoughts on this from people. Isn't causation in these types of cases usually a simple no diagnosis before drug, then drug used, then diagnosed with issue?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com