Obviously, our system of justice is an adversarial process. So the defense gets to say "it's legal" and here is why we think so. And then your attorney would say, "It's not legal and here are our experts who say so, here is the evidence, here is the written statute saying it's illegal, here is the court document where the doctor was criminally convicted for violating said statute, etc" And then the jury decides who is right. Every attorney on this website can give you examples of juries rendering ridiculous, illogical verdicts despite the provided evidence.
The court instructs the jury as to the law, usually including the prescribed method (process, sequence) of analysis and the required standard (quantity, quality) of proof. In some states, the juries hear the instructions of law orally from the bench. In others, they are also provided a written copy of the court's instructions for use during deliberations.
Juries make bad calls all of the time. Every case I ever lost was for that exact reason. The remedy is to timely appeal if there are legal grounds that are likely to succeed, and to roll with the punches if there are not. Our system of justice promises a day in court for those who hang in and hold out for that. But the system does not promise a correct result, only the opportunity to try for one.
My responses to questions on Avvo are never intended as legal advice and must not be relied upon as legal advice. I give legal advice only in the course of an attorney-client relationship. Exchange of information through Avvo's Questions forum does not establish an attorney-client relationship with me. That relationship is established only by individual consultation and execution of a written agreement for legal services.
It is hard to know from the information you provided what persuaded the jury - for example we don't know what your damages were. However, it sounds like they may have had difficulty establishing a connection between his admitted use of the misbranded medical product and your injuries. Violation of a statute can be evidence of negligence but the rule in many jurisdictions is the jury can find that it isn't negligence. That sounds like the case here. In order for a plaintiff to prevail on the issue, the jury would have to find that violaton of the statute was, in fact, negligence and then find that the negligence directly caused the harm alleged. It sounds like they didn't get past the first part of the equation.
The answer to this question is for informational purposes only and is expressly not legal advice. This information is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, a lawyer-client relationship. Readers should not act upon this without seeking advice from professional advisers. http://stevensonlynch.com/