- Butler v. Union Carbide, 2011 WL 2347505 (Ga.App. June 2011) — affirming trial court order excluding expert testimony that each exposure to asbestos above "background" or ambient air levels contributed to cause Plaintiff's mesothelioma, and granting summary judgment.
- Fields v. Southwire Co., et al, 2009-SC-0422 (State Court of Cherokee County, GA March 25, 2011) — excluding general causation testimony that "pure" chrysotile asbestos is capable of causing peritoneal mesothelioma.
- Hopkins v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, and AstraZeneca LP, No. 06C-01-325 SER, 2010 WL 1267219 (Sup. Ct. Del. Mar. 31, 2010) — excluding specific causation expert testimony that Seroquel caused Plaintiff's diabetes.
- Jones v. AstraZeneca LP et al., No. 07C-01-420 SER, 2010 WL 1267114 (Sup. Ct. Del. Mar. 31, 2010) — excluding specific causation expert testimony that Seroquel caused Plaintiff's diabetes.
- Tate v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, et al., No. MID-L-1608-07-MT (Sup. Ct. N.J. Feb. 10, 2010) — excluding specific causation expert testimony that Seroquel caused Plaintiff’s diabetes and granting summary judgment.
- Scaife v. AstraZeneca LP, AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP and Zeneca, LP, C.A. No. 06C-04-218 SER, 2009 WL 1610575 (Sup. Ct. Del. June 9, 2009) — excluding specific causation testimony of Plaintiff’s endocrinologist that Seroquel caused Plaintiff’s diabetes and granting summary judgment.
- Haller v. AstraZeneca Pharm. LP, 598 F. Supp. 2d 1271, 1278-79 (M.D. Fla 2009) — excluding specific causation testimony of Plaintiffs’ expert endocrinologists that Seroquel caused Plaintiff’s diabetes and granting summary judgment.
- Guinn v. AstraZeneca Pharm. LP, 598 F. Supp. 2d 1239, 1243 (M.D. Fla 2009) aff'd, 602 F.3d 1245 (11th Cir. 2010) —excluding specific causation testimony of Plaintiffs’ expert endocrinologists that Seroquel caused Plaintiff’s diabetes and granting summary judgment.
- Cano v. Everest Minerals Corp., 362 F. Supp. 2d 814 (W.D. Tex. 2005) — excluding testimony that exposure to radiation/uranium ore caused 18 different cancers among residents of Karnes County, Texas.
- Milam et al. v. Synthes North America, Inc., et al., Civil Action File No. 4:02-CV-0092-HLM (N.D. Ga. 2004) — excluding metallurgy expert and granting summary judgment in a medical device case.
- Alvarez v. Sequoyah Fuels Corp., No. CJ-94-230, District Court in and for Muskogee County, Oklahoma (May 14, 2004) — excluding testimony that airborne nitrogen fertilizer caused skin cancer.
- Newman v. Motorola, Inc., 218 F. Supp. 2d. 769 (D. Md. 2002), aff’d 78 Fed. Appx. 292 (4th Cir 2003) — excluding testimony that using a wireless phone caused brain cancer and granting summary judgment.
- Missouri Pacific RR Co. v. Navarro, 90 S.W.3d 747 (Tex. Ct. App. 2002) — reversing admission of testimony that diesel exhaust caused cancer and rendering judgment for defendants.
- McDowell v. Fulton-DeKalb Hospital Authority, et al., Civil Action File No. 1:99-CV-2364-JOF (N.D. Ga. Sept. 30, 2002) — excluding experts in neurology, neurosurgery and infectious disease in malpractice action alleging delayed diagnosis of spinal epidural abscess.
- In re Diet Drugs Products Liability Litigation, MDL 1203, Pretrial Order No. 1351 (E.D. Pa. June 28, 2000) — excluding causation testimony of experts adverse to phentermine defendants.
- Jones, et al. v. Sofamor, S.N.C., et al., Civil Action File Nos. 96-CV-3467, 3170 (N.D. Ga. Apr. 29, 1999) — excluding plaintiff’s causation expert in bone screw litigation.
- Wheat, et al. v. Sofamor, S.N.C., et al., Civil Action File Nos. 96-CV-3163, 3164, 3166, 3169 (N.D. Ga. Apr. 29, 1999) — excluding plaintiff’s causation expert in bone screw litigation.
- Washington v. SmithKline Beecham, et al., No. 99-0035, Circuit Court of Jefferson County, State of Mississippi (1999) — directed verdict for phentermine defendant in diet drug trial based on lack of scientific evidence supporting causation theory.
- Allison v. Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., 184 F. 3d 1300 (11th Cir. 1999). — excluding testimony that breast implants cause rheumatologic disease.
- Johnson v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., et al., No. CV-92-07501, Second Judicial District Court, County of Bernalillo, State of New Mexico (1998) — excluding testimony that breast implants cause rheumatologic disease.
- In re Breast Implant Cases, 11 F. Supp. 2d 1217 (D. Colo. 1998) — excluding testimony that breast implants cause rheumatologic disease.
- Whatley v. Bristol-Myers Squibb, Co., et al., Civil Action File No. 1-93-CV-2836 (N.D. Ga. 1998) — excluding testimony that breast implants cause breast cancer.
- Hall v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 947 F. Supp. 1387 (D. Or. 1996) — excluding testimony that breast implants cause rheumatologic disease.
- In Re: Silicone Breast Implant Litigation 706 Panel Report — 706 Panel determines that there is insufficient scientific evidence to establish that silicone breast implants cause rheumatologic disease.
Many of Alston & Bird’s lawyers have both technical training and litigation expertise in a variety of scientific fields, including biotechnology, engineering, epidemiology, pharmacology and microbiology. We regularly draw upon Alston & Bird’s intellectual property practice in biotechnology and our firm’s 10 Ph.D.s. In addition, our staff of nurse legal assistants makes our work evaluating medical records both efficient and cost-effective.
Our business requires that we maintain professional relationships with a host of experts, consultants and administrators at major universities, medical facilities, research centers and regulatory agencies. We also maintain extensive databases of expert witnesses, scientific literature and Daubert decisions in the defense of products liability claims and toxic exposure cases. We have enormous depth of resources and a willingness to solve our clients’ problems through technology, skill, expertise and simple hard work.