With all due respect to Ted Frank, the Drug and Device Law Blog is making a mad run at the all time lead for snarky comments about plaintiffs. I’m a traditionalist; I would like to see a playoff.
Here’s the latest open-ended, unexplained jab at plaintiffs made in a comment about a federal judge’s ruling in the Kugel hernia mesh cases:
The court rejected defendants’ motion to strike plaintiffs’ experts, who were an assistant professor of surgery at Harvard Medical School and a long-time professor of bioengineering and orthopedic surgery research at the University of Pennsylvania. We don’t see many plaintiffs’ experts with those kinds of credentials, and their credentials and experience appear to have persuaded the court to overlook an otherwise shaky foundation for their testimony.
Really? Where is the evidence/argument you refer to that this federal judge was overwhelmed by the experts’ credentials? I’m fine with anyone taking this position – who knows, maybe they are right – but how about offering a fact or two to support your position. If you are unabashedly committed to taking the defense position on every issue, it is a little hard to jump all in based on unsupported analysis.
I’ve traveled the country developing experts for defendants in drug cases. Believe me, in most cases, if you pick out a “Who’s Who?” list of the most qualified experts in a case where reasonable minds differ, you are going to overwhelming find that the stars support the drug companies.
But there is one problem with using this fact as an offensive weapon:
virtually all of these experts are financially tied to these same drug companies and were paid a fortune to participate in their clinical trials or are otherwise as economically reliant on drug companies as Melinda is to Bill.