Forman v. NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS CORP.
794 F. Supp. 2d 382
E.D.N.Y2011Background
- Forman sued NPC in EDNY over Aredia/Zometa warnings and FDA regulatory interactions.
- Court held Daubert hearing on Dr. Parisian’s opinions regarding FDA compliance and NPC conduct.
- Court previously found Parisian qualified but required reliability and scope determinations.
- Daubert ruling followed a hearing and consideration of her report and testimony, addressing methodology and prejudice risk.
- Deutsch settlement occurred on June 20, 2011; this decision concerns only the Forman case and not the Deutsch case.
- Court distinguished Hogan v. NPC as factually distinguishable; FDA relevance remains to Forman case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reliability of Parisian’s methodology | Forman argues Parisian’s FDA-based approach is reliable | NPC contends methodology lacks reliable basis | Methodology deemed reliable |
| Scope of Parisian’s testimony to avoid prejudice | Parisian’s opinions about FDA should be allowed | Testimony risks prejudice due to scope | Testimony admissible within defined limitations |
| Dispositive impact of Hogan v. NPC | Hogan is not controlling here | Hogan should exclude Parisian entirely | Hogan distinguishable; Parisian testimony permitted |
| Relevance of FDA regulations and NPC compliance | FDA compliance evidence is relevant to reasonableness | Evidence may be irrelevant or prejudicial | FDA compliance relevant to this case; testimony allowed |
Key Cases Cited
- Amorgianos v. Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp., 303 F.3d 256 (2d Cir. 2002) (reliability inquiry focused on principles and methodology; expert may rely on experience)
- In re Fosamax Prods. Liab. Litig., 645 F. Supp. 2d 164 (S.D.N.Y.2009) (experience and specialized knowledge acceptable for admissibility)