The Third Circuit upheld a lower court’s dismissal of a pharmaceutical injury suit based on the testimony of the plaintiff’s own expert witness.
Though the expert testified that there was a 51 percent chance the plaintiff’s injuries were caused by the drugs, the defendant successfully argued that that rate was not high enough under state law.
“Attorneys should recognize that the language that experts are skilled in is different, so they have to be purposeful in working with them upfront to get them early on the right terminology,” said Colin Kelly, partner in Alston & Bird’s Products Liability and Litigation & Trial Practice Groups.
“It’s not something you want to find out when the case is being dismissed.”
Though the expert testified that there was a 51 percent chance the plaintiff’s injuries were caused by the drugs, the defendant successfully argued that that rate was not high enough under state law.
“Attorneys should recognize that the language that experts are skilled in is different, so they have to be purposeful in working with them upfront to get them early on the right terminology,” said Colin Kelly, partner in Alston & Bird’s Products Liability and Litigation & Trial Practice Groups.
“It’s not something you want to find out when the case is being dismissed.”