Update – Which Decisions Have Excluded Dr. Parisian, And About What?

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...