facebook linked in twitter
close

Philip M. Busman

Partner

101 Constitution Avenue, NW
Suite 900
Washington, D.C., 20001
phil.busman@nelsonmullins.com

Phil Busman represents industry leaders and multinational corporations in complex litigation before state and federal trial and appellate courts around the country. He has experience in consolidated and serial litigation as well as high-profile individual matters, with particular focus on pharmaceutical, medical device, mass tort, environmental, business tort, antitrust, investigations, and employment cases. Phil works...

+ Read More

Phil Busman represents industry leaders and multinational corporations in complex litigation before state and federal trial and appellate courts around the country. He has experience in consolidated and serial litigation as well as high-profile individual matters, with particular focus on pharmaceutical, medical device, mass tort, environmental, business tort, antitrust, investigations, and employment cases. Phil works closely with the firm’s e-discovery team, Encompass, where he has developed a focus on data protection and the interplay of client practices with the new EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

 

closely with the firm’s e-discovery team, Encompass, where he has developed a focus on data protection and the interplay of client practices with the new EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

 

Phil Busman represents industry leaders and multinational corporations in complex litigation before state and federal trial and appellate courts around the country. He has experience in consolidated and serial litigation as well as high-profile individual matters, with particular focus on pharmaceutical, medical device, mass tort, environmental, business tort, antitrust, investigations, and employment cases. Phil works... closely with the firm’s e-discovery team, Encompass, where he has developed a focus on data protection and the interplay of client practices with the new EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

 

Experience

Following is a selected sampling of matters and is provided for informational purposes only. Past success does not indicate the likelihood of success in any future matter.

Experience

  • Has represented major pharmaceutical manufacturers in federal and state multidistrict litigation in which he was part of numerous trial teams, cross-examined lead expert witnesses at deposition and in Daubert hearings, formulated both FDA/regulatory and scientific causation defenses, coordinated the work of counsel across the country, managed internal attorney teams, and prepared and defended corporate witnesses.
  • Has experience in expert discovery and Daubert issues related to scientific and medical causation, FDA regulation, corporate compliance, business valuation, lost profits, and forensic accounting
  • Often called upon to cross-examine an adversary's lead expert witness at Daubert hearings and depositions
  • Toxic tort and environmental experience includes representation of corporations nationwide in connection with asbestos-containing materials, benzene, and other chemicals
  • Has examined complex financial transactions both domestically and abroad in connection with investigations involving the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, False Claims Act, RICO, and other federal and state statutes
  • Represents clients in connection with cutting-edge class action issues
  • Has developed strategies for and overseen organizations' document productions in response to government antitrust inquiries and as part of pre-merger notifications/Hart-Scott-Rodino submissions.

Representative Matters

  • Argued in favor of summary judgment on behalf of major pharmaceutical manufacturer in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on a complex issue of statute of limitation accrual for a latent injury.  See Hendrix v. Novartis Pharm. Corp., ___ Fed. Appx. ___, 2016 WL 1319737 (9th Cir. Apr. 5, 2016) (unpublished)
  • Secured summary judgment under Alabama warranty law after proving that the overwhelming benefits of his client’s prescription cancer therapy rendered it fit for its intended purpose. See Collins v. Novartis Pharm. Corp., No. 2:08-cv-438-MHT, 2015 WL 2183700 (M.D. Ala. May 11,2015).  Obtained summary judgment several times in similar matters, arguing that alleged problems with the product warnings were not the proximate cause of plaintiffs’ claimed injuries.  See Parkinson v. Novartis Pharm. Corp., 5 F. Supp. 3d 1265 (D. Or. 2014); Zimmerman v. Novartis Pharm. Corp., 287 F.R.D. 357 (D. Md. 2012); Eberhart v. Novartis Pharm. Corp., 867 F. Supp. 2d. 1241 (N.D. Ga. 2011)
  • Has excluded experts under Daubert and Federal Rule of Evidence 702  See Parmentier v. Novartis Pharm. Corp., No. 1:12-CV-00045 SNLJ, 2012 WL 2326047 (E.D. Mo. June 19, 2012)
  • Served on trial team for railroad company in the largest single tort case in South Carolina history arising from a derailment and chlorine release at the site of a major textile manufacturer. Coordinated massive on-site discovery efforts and defended against hundreds of millions of dollars of business interruption and diminution in value claims. The parties reached a confidential settlement during a lengthy trial in the District of South Carolina

Education

  • American University Washington College of Law, JD, cum laude (2000)
  • University of Michigan, BA (1997)

Admissions

  • District of Columbia
  • Virginia
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
  • U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida
  • U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland
  • U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
  • U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
  • U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
  • U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Columbia

Practice Areas

  • DRI – The Voice of the Defense Bar
  • National Association of Railroad Trial Counsel
  • Member, International Association of Defense Counsel
What's New
Idea Exchange
Top