Remove 2001 Remove Compliance Remove Fraud
article thumbnail

Guide to a Proactive Healthcare Cybersecurity Stance

Healthcare IT Today

For a healthcare entity, the data and information are viewed as extremely valuable as it includes PII as well as other health information that can be used for insurance fraud and identity theft. Troy is a frequent speaker and highly published thought leader on IT compliance and cybersecurity topics.

article thumbnail

Guest Post – Michigan Product Liability Law:  Retroactivity of New Law and Primer

Drug & Device Law

2022) (recognizing the following product defect liability theories: “(1) negligent design of the product; (2) negligent manufacture of the product; (3) negligent failure to warn about some aspect of the product; (4) breach of express or implied warranty; or (5) misrepresentation or fraud”). Lynch & Co. Flex Techs., 2d 180, 182 (Mich.

FDA 52
Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

article thumbnail

Thinking About the FDA’s Alternative Summary Reporting Program

Drug & Device Law

But what if the manufacturer allegedly failed to make its reports in compliance with the FDA’s restrictions on what types of adverse events were subject to ASR reporting? 341 (2001). So, if a plaintiff contends that a defendant abused the ASR program, that is a Buckman -preempted fraud on the FDA claim.

FDA 59
article thumbnail

Logical Contradiction Doctrine:  Buckman for Textualists

Drug & Device Law

341 (2001), with the rejection of the so-called “purposes and objectives” prong of implied preemption by the most conservative justices (at least in terms of federalism) on the Court. Plaintiffs Legal Committee , 531 U.S. Plaintiffs Legal Committee , 531 U.S. Mensing , 564 U.S. Mensing , 564 U.S. Lohr , 518 U.S.

FDA 72
article thumbnail

510(k) Devices, Compliance Presumptions, and the Long Shadow of Lohr

Drug & Device Law

In our initial post, we focused on the exception to the presumption, which allows liability to be imposed if a plaintiff alleges and ultimately proves that the defendant manufacturer committed fraud on the FDA. Today’s post focuses not on the exception to the compliance presumption but on the antecedent issue of when the presumption applies.

article thumbnail

Applying the Helpful but Problematic New Jersey Statute Creating a Rebuttable Compliance Presumption, the Third Circuit Affirms Dismissal of a Failure-to-Warn Claim

Drug & Device Law

But state-law claims that rest on alleged fraud on the FDA are contrary to Buckman Co. 341 (2001), which concluded that fraud-on-the-FDA claims are impliedly preempted because they “inevitably conflict” with the FDA’s regulatory discretion under. 2022 WL 1261318, at *1 (quoting N.J. Plaintiffs’ Legal Committee , 531 U.S.