Call 855-808-4530 or email GroupSales@alm.com to receive your discount on a new subscription.
A few months ago, a U.S. Magistrate Judge in Indiana excluded the opinions of two experts because they did not meet the “reliability” criteria for expert testimony specified in Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and the famous Daubert decision. (See Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (1993).) The rulings doomed the badly injured plaintiff’s claim because summary judgment in favor of the defendant quickly followed. The preclusive ruling on the experts is found at Lyons v. Leatt Corp., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 148783 (N.D. Ind. Sept. 14, 2017). The summary judgment opinion is found at 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 149046 (N.D. Ind. Sept. 14, 2017).
*May exclude premium content
By Steven P. Benenson
In the past several years, plaintiffs’ firms have threatened or brought class actions against different companies under New Jersey’s Truth-in-Consumer Contract Warranty and Notice Act (TCCWNA). Here's what you need to know.
By Mitch Warnock
When you take a catastrophic injury case involving paralysis, it is important to have a thorough understanding of the problems and pitfalls. In this article, the author explores, from personal experience, the different types of future expenses the client can expect to incur.
By Shannon E. McClure and Whitney Mayer
The FDA’s recent approval of 23andMe’s direct-to-consumer genetic test to identify genes associated with 10 common diseases and disorders could result in a widespread expansion of patients armed with individualized health information. This expansion of genetic information in the hands of consumers potentially impacts regulatory and litigation issues for pharmaceutical companies.
Discussion of major rulings out of Texas and California.