When someone calls after a life-altering drug or medical device injury, the first question often isn’t about jurisdiction or venue. It’s simpler: “Do the medical studies back this up?”
In modern pharmaceutical and medical device litigation, science isn’t background noise. It’s the battlefield. As trial lawyers in this space, we work at the intersection of epidemiology, clinical medicine, and internal safety reporting. In Daubert/Rule 702 challenges, those details can determine whether a case reaches a jury at all.
Put simply, the judge decides whether the science is reliable enough for a jury to hear.
At Leckman Law, our work is built on turning complex science into clear, courtroom-ready proof. With offices in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, we focus on the litigation and trial of complex personal injury and products liability cases, including drug and medical device claims. We don’t just manage files. We build trial-ready narratives from the first call through discovery, expert analysis, and, when necessary, trial.
Here’s how we move science from medical journals into the courtroom and build cases that might survive intense Rule 702/Daubert scrutiny:
From Journal Article to Jury: The Three Pillars of Evidence
To build a case that can go the distance, we weave together three streams of evidence. If one pillar fails, especially on causation, the case may not survive.
1. Epidemiology and Clinical Research
Epidemiology (the study of disease patterns in populations) is often the starting point. We analyze cohort studies, case-control studies, and meta-analyses to evaluate whether the data show an association that could support causation.
Under Rule 702 and Daubert standards, federal judges serve as gatekeepers, deciding whether an expert’s methods are reliable enough for a jury to consider.
2. Internal Corporate and Regulatory Records
Science isn’t limited to what appears in a medical journal. It can also include what shows up in internal records and regulatory materials. We look for:
- Internal communications about reported risks and safety signals
- Clinical trial materials, including data that may not appear in published summaries
- Regulatory documents (for example, FDA briefing materials and risk management plans)
In some product-liability litigation, internal documents have been alleged to show that risks were recognized earlier than the warnings provided to patients and prescribers.
3. Expert Testimony: The Bridge to the Jury
Even a strong study can’t speak for itself in court. We work with highly qualified epidemiologists, toxicologists, and clinicians to address:
- General causation: Can the product cause this type of injury?
- Specific causation: Did it cause this client’s injury under their medical history and exposures?
Case Study 1: Hair Relaxers and the Sister Study
In 2022, researchers using NIH’s Sister Study data (about 33,000 women) reported that frequent use of hair straightening products, defined as more than four times in the previous year, was associated with more than double the risk of uterine cancer compared to non-users.
A subsequent analysis from Boston University’s Black Women’s Health Study reported an increased uterine cancer risk among postmenopausal Black women with long-term/frequent relaxer use (reported as greater than 50% increased risk in certain use categories).
The Trial Strategy
We use this data to support our experts and cross-examine defense witnesses who attempt to downplay the risk. This research has helped shape how courts and litigants evaluate the claims and defenses in the hair relaxer litigation. And it underscores why the court had scheduled a dedicated Science Day on January 8, 2026, a forum designed to educate the court (and potentially parallel state-court judges) on scientific issues expected to play a major role in the litigation.
Case Study 2: Tylenol (acetaminophen) Autism/ADHD
In the acetaminophen (Tylenol) autism/ADHD MDL, the court excluded plaintiffs’ general-causation experts under Rule 702/Daubert and later entered judgment in the remaining cases in August 2024, concluding the claims could not proceed without admissible causation evidence.
The Lesson
This outcome highlights why the scientific and expert foundation of a drug injury case must be rigorous from day one. Courts are increasingly skeptical of novel science. The plaintiffs appealed, and the admissibility rulings remain a key focus on review. (As with most appeals, timing and outcomes are uncertain.)
We continue to monitor these developments as the legal community debates whether the scientific record was properly scrutinized. At Leckman Law, we do not shy away from complex science, but we remain honest about uncertainty and build our cases on the most resilient data available.
Case Study 3: GLP-1 drugs (Ozempic/Wegovy/Mounjaro) and GI injury
As this litigation develops, our work focuses on building cases the right way, grounded in medicine, regulatory history, and admissible expert methodology. In the GLP-1 receptor agonist litigation (MDL 3094), plaintiffs allege that drugs such as Ozempic, Wegovy, and Mounjaro caused severe gastrointestinal injuries, including gastroparesis, ileus, and intestinal obstruction.
Because this science is still developing, our role is to build an admissible evidentiary record. We look beyond the promotional messaging to examine:
- Mechanistic evidence of delayed gastric emptying
- Post-marketing adverse event reports
- Internal safety materials obtained through discovery, where permitted
- Emerging research has examined a possible association between semaglutide and NAION, a rare optic nerve condition involving sudden vision loss
Why Leckman Law is Built for Science-Heavy Litigation
Leckman Law is built for litigation that demands deep preparation and trial readiness. Our civil justice system is built to give injured people a fair chance to present their case, and in many matters, that means a jury trial is still the ultimate backstop.
Matt Leckman has spent his career in the trenches of science-intensive litigation:
- Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT): Trial experience in HRT litigation involving alleged breast cancer risks.
- Risperdal: Experience in Risperdal litigation, including trial work in cases that resulted in major verdicts.
- Background: Clerkship for a former Justice of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court; years of complex litigation experience before founding Leckman Law.
We see ourselves as more than just lawyers. We are translators. We take complex hazard ratios and confidence intervals and turn them into a story of corporate accountability that a jury can understand and act upon.
Contact Leckman Law Today
If you or a loved one has been harmed by a prescription drug or medical device, you should not have to decipher medical studies alone. We can help you evaluate the available evidence, consult with appropriate professionals, and understand your legal options step by step, so you can make informed decisions.
When companies put profits over patient safety, the courtroom is the only place where science and accountability meet on equal footing.
Contact Leckman Law today for a confidential consultation.
Disclaimer: This article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reading this article or contacting Leckman Law does not create an attorney-client relationship. If you need legal advice about your specific situation, please contact a lawyer.