Seroxat / Paxil birth defect litigation evidence was blatent hearsay

Paxil evidence was blatent hearsay


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/uksurvivors/message/48807





According to a Bloomberg report from last Friday, a plaintiff witness who once worked for the defendant was permitted to testify that some unknown person had made a "note in the company's files" that a different birth defect incident (not part of this suit) was "likely linked" to the drug. This phantom declarant testimony was allowed even though the witness giving it admitted that what happened might have been a "mistake" and that the phantom could have "checked the box wrong."



That evidentiary ruling, assuming Bloomberg accurately reported it, leaves us scratching our heads. It's blatant hearsay, and since the regularity of the statement by the phantom declarant (and the requisite authority) was obviously unproven, it can't plausibly be considered a business record.











http://druganddevicelaw.blogspot.com/2009/09/odd-evidentiary-ruling-in-philadelphia.html