Legal Opinion

Doe v. Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics, Inc.

District Court, M.D. North Carolina

Decided July 6, 2006No. 1:03CV00669PublishedCited by 33 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM OPINION

BEATY, District Judge.

Plaintiffs John and Jane Doe 2 (“Plaintiffs”) have initiated this lawsuit based upon their contention that the thimerosal in Defendant Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics, Inc.’s (“Ortho-Clinical” or “Defendant”) biologic product RhoGAM caused them child’s autism. This matter is presently before the Court on three motions: Defendant’s Motion to Exclude All Testimony that Thimerosal-Containing RhoGAM Causes Autism [Document # 63], Defendant’s Motion to Exclude Plaintiffs’ Expert Suzanne Parisian, M.D. [Document # 65], and relatedly, Defendant’s Motion for Summary…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
  2. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  3. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1993
  4. General Electric Co. v. JoinerSupreme Court of the United States · 1997
  5. Westberry v. Gislaved Gummi ABCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1999

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by33 opinions

  1. In re C.R. Bard, Inc.District Court, S.D. West Virginia · 2013
  2. Blackwell v. WyethCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2009
  3. Henricksen v. ConocoPhillips Co.District Court, E.D. Washington · 2009
  4. Hendrix v. Evenflo Co.District Court, N.D. Florida · 2009
  5. McClellan v. I-Flow Corp.District Court, D. Oregon · 2010

28 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API