| Table of Contents |
|
|
| Chapter 1: The Third Edition of the Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence—Time for Revision? |
Nathan A. Schachtman ~ Nathan A. Schachtman, Esq., PC
|
|
| Chapter 2: The Role of the “Science Lawyer” in Modern Litigation |
Nathan A. Schachtman ~ Nathan A. Schachtman, Esq., PC
|
|
| Chapter 4: Pain Pump Litigation: Report To Michael Williams, Esq., Re Shoulder Chondrolysis Causation |
Nathan A. Schachtman ~ Nathan A. Schachtman, Esq., PC
David M. Cohen ~ Baker Botts LLP
|
|
| Chapter 5: Pain Pump Litigation: Report of Opinions Wheeler v. DJO, ET Al |
Nathan A. Schachtman ~ Nathan A. Schachtman, Esq., PC
David M. Cohen ~ Baker Botts LLP
|
|
| Chapter 6: Pain Pump Litigation: Postarthroscopic Glenohumeral Chondrolysis (Abstract) |
Nathan A. Schachtman ~ Nathan A. Schachtman, Esq., PC
David M. Cohen ~ Baker Botts LLP
|
|
| Chapter 7: Pain Pump Litigation: Glenohumeral Chondrolysis After Arthroscopy: A Systematic Review of Potential Contributors and Causal Pathways (Abstract) |
Nathan A. Schachtman ~ Nathan A. Schachtman, Esq., PC
David M. Cohen ~ Baker Botts LLP
|
|
| Chapter 8: U.S. v. Kilpatrick, 2009 Wl 2058384 (S.D. FLA.) Order, June 25, 2009 |
|
|
| Chapter 9: Kilpatrick v. Breg, Opinion, August 12,2010, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit |
|
|
| Chapter 10: McClellan v. I-flow Corp., 710 F. Supp. 2d. 1092 (D. Ct. ORE. 2010) |
|
|
| Chapter 11: Musgrave v. BREG, Order, Sept. 2, 2011, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Ohio |
|
|
| Chapter 12: Placencia v. I-flow Corp., Order, November 20, 2012, U.S. District Court, District of Arizona |
|
|
| Chapter 13: Desultory Thoughts on Milward v. Acuity Specialty Products |
Nathan A. Schachtman ~ Nathan A. Schachtman, Esq., PC
|
|
| Chapter 14: Toxic Tort Litigation: After Milward v. Acuity Products |
|
|
| Chapter 15: Sometimes Doubt Doesn’t Sell: A Plaintiffs’ Lawyer’s Perspective on Milward v. Acuity Products |
|
|
| Chapter 16: A Fitting Vision of Science for the Courtroom |
|
|
| Index |
|
|