Back in 2013, we published a comprehensive post on the checkered Daubert history of the notorious and prolific (in equal amounts) plaintiff-side “FDA expert” (although she routinely attempts to opine way beyond FDA matters) – “Dr.” Suzanne Parisian. We use quotation marks, because although Parisian is technically an MD, she hasn’t seen a single patient in decades. See, e.g., In re Mirena IUD Products Liability Litigation, 169 F. Supp.3d 396, 475 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) (“she has not treated a live patient since 1988 and has not practiced pathology since the 1990s”). Since the rumors we had heard of Dr. Parisian retiring appear to be greatly exaggerated, we thought it would be a good idea to update the post with additional Parisian-related Daubert rulings over the past three years.

As before, we’re categorizing the exclusions by topic – indeed, we’ve added a couple of new topics − starting with those opinions that exclude her altogether as a witness, and working our way down. As always, because we don’t believe in doing the other side’s research for them, we’re not listing topics on which she was allowed to testify. We caution, however, that unless a decision is in the first paragraph of this post, that means that Dr. Parisian was allowed to testify about something.

Here goes:

Cases Totally Excluding Dr. Parisian’s Testimony: Miller v. Stryker Instruments, 2012 WL 1718825, at *10-12 (D. Ariz. March 29, 2012) (no coherent methodology; unhelpful; legal conclusions; narrative testimony; unqualified to give medical testimony; ipse dixit; reliance on after-the-fact events); Kaufman v. Pfizer Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 2011 WL 7659333, at *6-10 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 4, 2011) (ipse dixit; conclusory; lack of methodology; opinions not tied to FDA regulations or to facts; irrelevant bases; intent/state of mind; outside scope of expertise; outside relevant time period), reconsideration denied, 2011 WL 10501233 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 10, 2011) (narrative testimony; lack of methodology; outside relevant time period); Hogan v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., 2011 WL 1533467, at *2-3 (E.D.N.Y. April 24, 2011) (FDA issues irrelevant; unqualified as to industry standards); Lopez v. I-Flow Inc., 2011 WL 1897548, at *9-10 (D. Ariz. Jan. 26, 2011) (legal conclusions; conclusory; improper state of mind/intent opinions; narrative testimony; bases not connected to conclusions; ipse dixit; speculative; outside expertise); In re Trasylol Products Liability Litigation, 709 F. Supp.2d 1323, 1336-51 (S.D. Fla. 2010) (unqualified as to foreign regulations and medical causation; narrative testimony; ipse dixit; corporate knowledge and intent; FDA violation testimony conclusory and not tied to regulations; opinions beyond scope of report; improper reliance on internal documents; lack of methodology; speculation; advocate not an expert), certification denied, 2010 WL 2541892 (S.D. Fla. June 22, 2010); In re Prempro Products Liability Litigation, 554 F. Supp.2d 871, 879-87 (E.D. Ark. 2008) (erroneous admission of Parisian testimony required new trial on punitive damages; narrative testimony, ipse dixit; testimony not connected to FDA regulations), aff’d in pertinent part, reversed in part on other grounds, 586 F.3d 547, 571 (8th Cir. 2009); Jacobs v. Caesars Entertainment, Inc., 2007 WL 594714, at *4 (E.D. La. Feb. 21, 2007) (insufficient factual basis; unreliable methodology), reconsideration denied, 2007 WL 1558717, at *2 (E.D. La. May 30, 2007), aff’d, 280 F. Appx. 424 (5th Cir. 2008); Nelson v. C.R. Bard, Inc., 2006 WL 6225071 (D.D.C. Sept. 26, 2006) (minute order); Barnes v. EBI Medical Systems, Inc., 2001 WL 36105533 (Vir. Cir. Spotsylvania Co. Jan. 26, 2001) (legal opinion; lack of qualifications; no foundation; speculation).

Cases Excluding Dr. Parisian’s Opinions That The Defendant Violated FDA Regulations: Kruszka v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., 28 F. Supp.3d 920, 934 (D. Minn. 2014) (legal conclusions that the defendant “violated the law”); Rowland v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., 9 F. Supp.3d 553, 561-62 (W.D. Pa. 2014) (conclusions about regulatory compliance); Monroe v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., 2014 WL 12586426, at *3-4 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 15, 2014) (regulatory compliance; conclusions of law); Stanley v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., 2014 WL 12573393, at *4 (C.D. Cal. May 6, 2014) (legal conclusions; regulatory compliance); Block v. Woo Young Medical Co., 937 F. Supp.2d 1028, 1046-47 (D. Minn. 2013) (compliance generally); Stambolian v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., 2013 WL 6345566, at *9 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 6, 2013) (legal conclusions); Mathews v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., 2013 WL 5780415, at *24 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 25, 2013) (legal conclusions); Earp v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., 2013 WL 4854488, at *4 (E.D.N.C. Sept. 11, 2013) (compliance with regulations); Taylor v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., 2013 WL 5118945, at *7 (S.D. Fla. April 22, 2013) (allowed to testify only after disclaiming compliance opinions); Chiles v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., 923 F. Supp.2d 1330, 1333 (M.D. Fla. 2013) (legal conclusions); Dopson-Troutt v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., 2013 WL 1344755, at *3 (M.D. Fla. April 2, 2013) (compliance with regulation predicated on “causal relationship”; legal conclusions); Guenther v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., 2013 WL 1278089, at *2-3 (M.D. Fla. March 28, 2013) (compliance with regulation predicated on “causal relationship”; legal conclusions); Lemons v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., 849 F. Supp.2d 608, 615 (W.D.N.C. 2012) (legal conclusions); Georges v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., 2012 WL 9064768, at *9-10 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 2, 2012) (compliance with regulations, legal conclusions generally); Lyman v. Pfizer, Inc., 2012 WL 2971550, at *6 (D. Vt. July 20, 2012) (legal conclusions); Baldonado v. Wyeth, 2012 WL 2921026, at *2-3 (N.D. Ill. July 17, 2012) (sandbagging; untimeliness); Barnes v. Orthofix International NV, 2012 WL 1931224, at *5 (W.D. Wash. May 23, 2012) (legal conclusions); Pritchett v. I-Flow Corp., 2012 WL 1059948, at *6- (D. Colo. March 28, 2012) (unqualified to give legal conclusions; invades role of judge and jury); Hines v. Wyeth, 2011 WL 2680842, at *5-6 (S.D.W. Va. July 8, 2011) (conclusory), order clarified on reconsideration, 2011 WL 2730908 (S.D.W. Va. July 13, 2011); In re Heparin Products Liability Litigation, 2011 WL 1059660, at *8 (N.D. Ohio March 21, 2011) (as to reasonableness of compliance); In re Guidant Corp. Implantable Defibrillators Products Liability Litigation, 2007 WL 1964337, at *7 (D. Minn. June 29, 2007) (legal conclusion; improper foundation); Lillebo v. Zimmer, Inc., 2005 WL 388598, at *4-5 (D. Minn. Feb. 16, 2005) (FDA legal requirements and compliance); Oakberg v. Zimmer, Inc., 2004 WL 5503779, at *2 (D. Mont. Nov. 23, 2004) (content, application, or violation of FDA regulations; FDA regulatory clearance or reporting requirements), aff’d in pertinent part, reversed in part on other grounds, 211 F. Appx. 578, 580 (9th Cir. 2006); Bessemer v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., 2010 WL 2300222 (N.J. Super. Law Div. April 30, 2010) (legal opinions).

Cases Excluding Dr. Parisian’s Opinions About Regulatory Issues in Other Countries: In re Mirena IUD Products Liability Litigation, 169 F. Supp.3d 396, 477 (S.D.N.Y. 2016). Note: This was also one of the reasons for Dr. Parisian’s total exclusion in In re Trasylol Products Liability Litigation, 709 F. Supp.2d 1323, 1336 (S.D. Fla. 2010).

Cases Excluding Dr. Parisian’s Testimony Concerning Risks of Other Drugs: Jones v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., ___ F. Supp.3d ___, 2017 WL 372246, at *15 (N.D. Ala. Jan. 26, 2017); Rheinfrank v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., No. 1:13-cv-00144-SJD, slip op. at 18 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 2, 2015), aff’d, ___ F. Appx. ___, 2017 WL 680349 (6th Cir. Feb. 21, 2017); In re Fosamax Products Liability Litigation, 924 F. Supp.2d 477, 495-96 (S.D.N.Y. 2013).

Cases Excluding Dr. Parisian’s Testimony About Pharmaceutical Industry Standards: In re Mirena IUD Products Liability Litigation, 169 F. Supp.3d 396, 478 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) (alternative designs); Kruszka v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., 28 F. Supp.3d 920, 935 (D. Minn. 2014); Gilliland v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., 2014 WL 11581411, at *1 (S.D. Iowa July 30, 2014); Bartoli v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., 2014 WL 1515870, at *6 (M.D. Pa. April 17, 2014) (ethical standards; no expertise); In re Fosamax Products Liability Litigation, 924 F. Supp.2d 477, 496-97 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (use of “Dear Doctor” letters; opinions contrary to learned intermediary rule); Taylor v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., 2013 WL 5118945, at *7 (S.D. Fla. April 22, 2013) (no expertise); Lemons v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., 849 F. Supp.2d 608, 615 (W.D.N.C. 2012) (NDA approval, pharmacovigilence and monitoring of clinical trials; no expertise); Georges v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., 2012 WL 9064768, at *13 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 2, 2012) (unqualified); Johnson v. Wyeth LLC, 2012 WL 1204081, at *1-2 (D. Ariz. April 11, 2012) (testing); Chandler v. Greenstone Ltd., 2012 WL 882756, at *2 (W.D. Wash. March 14, 2012) (reasonableness); Deutsch v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., 768 F. Supp. 2d 420, 468 (E.D.N.Y. 2011) (no expertise); Cross v. Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 2011 WL 3498305, at *5 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 10, 2011) (industry custom and practice); Rivera Adams v. Wyeth, 2010 WL 5072061, at *3 (D.P.R. Dec. 3, 2010) (industry standard of care); Ingram v. Wyeth, 2010 WL 5663003, at *3 (E.D. Ark. Sept. 16, 2010) (conclusory; speculative); In re Guidant Corp. Implantable Defibrillators Products Liability Litigation, 2007 WL 1964337, at *7 (D. Minn. June 29, 2007) (legal conclusion); Oakberg v. Zimmer, Inc., 2004 WL 5503779, at *2 (D. Mont. Nov. 23, 2004) (marketing and advertising; warnings), aff’d in pertinent part, reversed in part on other grounds, 211 F. Appx. 578, 580 (9th Cir. 2006); Linsley v. C.R. Bard, Inc., 2000 WL 343358, at *4-5 (E.D. La. March 30, 2000) (adequacy of warning).

Cases Excluding Dr. Parisian’s Testimony Concerning Medical Issues:

Jones v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., ___ F. Supp.3d ___, 2017 WL 372246, at *9-12 (N.D. Ala. Jan. 26, 2017) (“causal association”; how prescribers would respond to warnings; notice of risk); In re Mirena IUD Products Liability Litigation, 169 F. Supp.3d 396, 475-76 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) (medical risks; medical causation; “causal association”); In re Wright Medical Technology, Inc., Conserve Hip Implant Products Liability Litigation, 127 F. Supp.3d 1306, 1335-36 (N.D. Ga. 2015) (medical causation); Rheinfrank v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., No. 1:13-cv-00144-SJD, slip op. at 16-17 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 2, 2015) (medical state of the art), aff’d, ___ F. Appx. ___, 2017 WL 680349, at *10 (6th Cir. Feb. 21, 2017); Kruszka v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., 28 F. Supp.3d 920, 934-35 (D. Minn. 2014) (medical causation; “regulatory causation”); Rowland v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., 9 F. Supp.3d 553, 562 (W.D. Pa. 2014) (“regulatory causation” ; how prescribers would respond to warnings); Monroe v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., 2014 WL 12586426, at *3 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 15, 2014) (“regulatory causation”); Gilliland v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., 2014 WL 11581411, at *1 (S.D. Iowa July 30, 2014) (medical or regulatory causation); Kirchman v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., 2014 WL 12617778, at *5 (M.D. Fla. May 22, 2014) (“regulatory causation”); Stanley v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., 2014 WL 12573393, at *4-5 & n.4 (C.D. Cal. May 6, 2014) (“regulatory causation”; response of prescribers to different warnings); Bartoli v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., 2014 WL 1515870, at *6 (M.D. Pa. April 17, 2014) (unqualified); Chiles v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., 923 F. Supp.2d 1330, 1333-34 (M.D. Fla. 2013) (“regulatory causation”; medical causation); Stambolian v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., 2013 WL 6345566, at *9, 11 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 6, 2013) (causal connection; how prescribers would respond to warnings); Mathews v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., 2013 WL 5780415, at *24 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 25, 2013) “regulatory causation”); Earp v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., 2013 WL 4854488, at *4 (E.D.N.C. Sept. 11, 2013) (medical causation; adequacy of warnings); Taylor v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., 2013 WL 5118945, at *8-9 (S.D. Fla. April 22, 2013) (medical causation; adequacy of warnings, monitoring of clinical trials); Dopson-Troutt v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., 2013 WL 1344755, at *3 (M.D. Fla. April 2, 2013) (“regulatory causation”; “causal association”); Block v. Woo Young Medical Co., 937 F. Supp.2d 1028, 1047 (D. Minn. 2013) (medical causation); Lemons v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., 849 F. Supp.2d 608, 615 (W.D.N.C. 2012) (medical causation); Jenkins v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., 2012 WL 6213494, at *7 (E.D. Tenn. Dec. 13, 2012) (mechanisms of medical causation); Hill v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., 2012 WL 5451809, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 7, 2012) (medical causation and diagnosis); Georges v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., 2012 WL 9064768, at *10, 12-14 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 2, 2012) (“causal association,” how doctors react to labeling, conduct of clinical trials, other drugs, events postdating exposure); Winter v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., 2012 WL 827305, at *5 (W.D. Mo. March 8, 2012) (medical causation); Brown v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., 2012 WL 9082913, at *5 (Mag. E.D.N.C. Jan. 9, 2012), adopted in pertinent part, 2012 WL 9082901 (E.D.N.C. Sept. 20, 2012) (medical causation, diagnosis, medical testimony generally); Forman v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., 794 F. Supp. 2d 382, 384 (E.D.N.Y. 2011) (medical causation); Deutsch v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., 768 F. Supp.2d 420, 469 (E.D.N.Y. 2011) (not qualified to diagnose disease); In re Heparin Products Liability Litigation, 2011 WL 1059660, at *8 (N.D. Ohio March 21, 2011) (medical or physiological causation); In re Human Tissue Products Liability Litigation, 582 F. Supp. 2d 644, 665-71 (D.N.J. 2008) (possible methods of transmitting several diseases; speculation; unqualified); Oakberg v. Zimmer, Inc., 2004 WL 5503779, at *2 (D. Mont. Nov. 23, 2004) (medical causation), aff’d in pertinent part, reversed in part on other grounds, 211 F. Appx. 578, 580 (9th Cir. 2006); Linsley v. C.R. Bard, Inc., 2000 WL 343358, at *4-5 (E.D. La. March 30, 2000) (medical causation; adequacy of warning to physician); Meng v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., 2012 WL 9083477, at *1 (N.J. Super. L.D. Aug. 8, 2012) (medical causation); Meng v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., No. 2012 WL 9083474, at *1 (N.J. Super. L.D. Aug. 8, 2012) (medical causation); see Anderson v. Frank, 2009 WL 5172680 (Pa. C.P. Philadelphia Co. Dec. 15, 2009) (imposing sanctions because Dr. Parisian was not an “appropriate licensed professional” eligible to testify in medical malpractice case).

Cases Excluding Dr. Parisian’s Testimony About Corporate Intent/Motive/State Of Mind/Ethics: Jones v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., ___ F. Supp.3d ___, 2017 WL 372246, at *12-13 (N.D. Ala. Jan. 26, 2017); In re Mirena IUD Products Liability Litigation, 169 F. Supp.3d 396, 479-80 (S.D.N.Y. 2016); Rheinfrank v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., No. 1:13-cv-00144-SJD, slip op. at 17 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 2, 2015), aff’d, ___ F. Appx. ___, 2017 WL 680349 (6th Cir. Feb. 21, 2017); Kruszka v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., 28 F. Supp.3d 920, 935 (D. Minn. 2014) (“implied coercion” of physicians); Bartoli v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., 2014 WL 1515870, at *6 (M.D. Pa. April 17, 2014); Earp v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., 2013 WL 4854488, at *4 (E.D.N.C. Sept. 11, 2013); Lemons v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., 849 F. Supp.2d 608, 615 (W.D.N.C. 2012); Hill v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., 2012 WL 5451809, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 7, 2012);Georges v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., 2012 WL 9064768, at *13 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 2, 2012); Johnson v. Wyeth LLC, 2012 WL 1204081, at *3 (D. Ariz. April 11, 2012); Pritchett v. I-Flow Corp., 2012 WL 1059948, at *6 (D. Colo. March 28, 2012); Chandler v. Greenstone Ltd., 2012 WL 882756, at *1 (W.D. Wash. March 14, 2012); Winter v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., 2012 WL 827305, at *5 (W.D. Mo. March 8, 2012); Deutsch v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., 768 F. Supp.2d 420, 467 (E.D.N.Y. 2011); Hines v. Wyeth, 2011 WL 2680842, at *7 (S.D.W. Va. July 8, 2011), order clarified on reconsideration, 2011 WL 2730908, at *2 (S.D.W. Va. July 13, 2011); In re Heparin Products Liability Litigation, 2011 WL 1059660, at *8 (N.D. Ohio March 21, 2011); In re Gadolinium-Based Contrast Agents Products Liability Litigation, 2010 WL 1796334, at *13 (N.D. Ohio May 4, 2010); In re Fosamax Products Liability Litigation, 645 F. Supp.2d 164, 192 (S.D.N.Y. 2009); Reece v. Astrazeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, 500 F. Supp. 2d 736, 744-46 (S.D. Ohio 2007) (advisability of tests; warnings needed for particular medical conditions; lack of methodology); In re Guidant Corp. Implantable Defibrillators Products Liability Litigation, 2007 WL 1964337, at *8 (D. Minn. June 29, 2007); Bessemer v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., 2010 WL 2300222 (N.J. Super. Law Div. April 30, 2010); Singh v. Edwards Lifesciences Corp., 2008 WL 5758387, ¶ELS 6 (Wash. Super. Snohomish Co. Jan. 31, 2008).

Cases Excluding Dr. Parisian’s Narrative Testimony: In re Mirena IUD Products Liability Litigation, 169 F. Supp.3d 396, 478, 481 (S.D.N.Y. 2016); Rheinfrank v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., No. 1:13-cv-00144-SJD, slip op. at 17-18 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 2, 2015), aff’d, ___ F. Appx. ___, 2017 WL 680349 (6th Cir. Feb. 21, 2017); In re Fosamax Products Liability Litigation, 924 F. Supp.2d 477, 497 (S.D.N.Y. 2013); Pritchett v. I-Flow Corp., 2012 WL 1059948, at *7 (D. Colo. March 28, 2012); Hines v. Wyeth, 2011 WL 2680842, at *7 (S.D.W. Va. July 8, 2011), order clarified on reconsideration, 2011 WL 2730908, at *2 (S.D.W. Va. July 13, 2011); In re Heparin Products Liability Litigation, 2011 WL 1059660, at *8 (N.D. Ohio March 21, 2011); In re Gadolinium-Based Contrast Agents Products Liability Litigation, 2010 WL 1796334, at *13 (N.D. Ohio May 4, 2010); In re Fosamax Products Liability Litigation, 645 F. Supp.2d 164, 192 (S.D.N.Y. 2009); Bessemer v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., 2010 WL 2300222 (N.J. Super. Law Div. April 30, 2010).

Cases Excluding Dr. Parisian’s Testimony Criticizing Medical Literature: Bartoli v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., 2014 WL 1515870, at *6 (M.D. Pa. April 17, 2014) (ghostwriting; funding); Kruszka v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., 28 F. Supp.3d 920, 935 (D. Minn. 2014) (ghostwriting); Hill v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., 944 F. Supp.2d 943, 952 (E.D. Cal. 2013) (ghostwriting); Stambolian v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., 2013 WL 6345566, at *9-10 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 6, 2013); Earp v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., 2013 WL 4854488, at *4 (E.D.N.C. Sept. 11, 2013) (ghostwriting); Lemons v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., 849 F. Supp.2d 608, 615 (W.D.N.C. 2012) (ghostwriting); Georges v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., 2012 WL 9064768, at *14 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 2, 2012) (ghostwriting); Deutsch v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., 768 F. Supp.2d 420, 468-69 (E.D.N.Y. 2011) (ghostwriting; funding; personal opinion); In re Fosamax Products Liability Litigation, 645 F. Supp.2d 164, 191 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (ghostwriting).

Cases Excluding Dr. Parisian’s Testimony Criticizing the FDA: Monroe v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., 2014 WL 12586426, at *4 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 15, 2014)

Got any others – particularly slip opinions (like the Rheinfrank decision we discovered when writing this post)? We suspect there are probably others out there. Send them to us, and we’ll get the word out.