Legal Opinion
in the New York Coordinated Proceeding v. Bausch & Lomb
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided September 15, 2011PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of showing at the Frye hearing (Frye v United States, 293 F 1013 [1923]) that their experts’ opinions that defendant’s soft contact lens solution ReNu with MoistureLoc (ReNu ML) was causally related to a rise in non-Fusarium corneal infections were generally accepted by the relevant medical or scientific community (see Pauling v Orentreich Med. Group, 14 AD3d 357 [2005], lv denied 4 NY3d 710 [2005]; Lara v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 305 AD2d 106 [2003]; see also Marso v Novak, 42 AD3d 377 [2007], lv denied 12 NY3d 704 [2009]). They submitted no…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Peguero v. 601 Realty Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2009
- Lara v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2003
- Marso v. NovakAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2007
- Saulpaugh v. KrafteAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2004
- Pauling v. Orentreich Medical GroupAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2005
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Knafo v. Mount Sinai Hosp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2020
- De La Rosa v. Nelson Ave. HoldingsAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2021
- De La Rosa v. Nelson Ave. HoldingsAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2021
- Bausch & Lomb Contact Lens Solution Product Liability LitigationAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2015