Doe v. Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics, Inc.
District Court, M.D. North Carolina
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
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1993
- General Electric Co. v. JoinerSupreme Court of the United States · 1997
- 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
- In re C.R. Bard, Inc.District Court, S.D. West Virginia · 2013
- Blackwell v. WyethCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2009
- Henricksen v. ConocoPhillips Co.District Court, E.D. Washington · 2009
- Hendrix v. Evenflo Co.District Court, N.D. Florida · 2009
- McClellan v. I-Flow Corp.District Court, D. Oregon · 2010
28 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.