so who says Paxil / Seroxat evidence is blaent hearsay - check out the source

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/uksurvivors/message/48838


source -






Beck/Herrmann

JAMES M. BECK is a Counsel resident in the Philadelphia office of Dechert LLP. He is the author of, among other things, Drug and Medical Device Product Liability Handbook (2004) (with Anthony Vale). He can be reached at james.beck@.... MARK HERRMANN is a partner resident in the Chicago office of Jones Day. He is the author of, among other things, The Curmudgeon's Guide to Practicing Law (2006), and Statewide Coordinated Proceedings: State Court Analogues to the Federal MDL Process (2d rev. ed. 2004) (with Geoff Ritts and Katherine Larson). He can be reached at mherrmann@....





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



extract -



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.



That would leave "admission of a party opponent" as the only other ground for letting that in.



But in Pennsylvania, the law is pretty clear that phantom declarant admissions aren't admissible. In Harris v. Toys "R" Us-Penn, Inc., 880 A.2d 1270 (Pa. Super. 2005), a unanimous panel held that the purported "admission" of a phantom employee that he hadn't "put up right" a carton that later fell off a shelf and hit the plaintiff was inadmissible. To establish ..................