Remove 2001 Remove FDA Remove Governance
article thumbnail

Contract Claim Based on Alleged FDCA Violation Held Not Impliedly Preempted

Drug & Device Law

Today’s case is a counterpart to our post a few months ago about a case applying Buckman preemption to a contract dispute where adjudicating the alleged breach would have forced the court to decide FDA regulatory issues. 4, 353 (2001). In that case ( Thogus Products Co. Bleep, LLC , 2023 WL 5607458 (N.D. Buckman Co. 341, 349 n.4,

FDA 52
article thumbnail

At Least One Aspect of the Camp Lejeune Litigation Isn’t Going FUBAR

Drug & Device Law

Anybody who might attempt to obtain similar discovery from the FDA in a prescription medical product case, take note. 1, 8-9 (2001)) (internal quotations omitted). Peer review in this instance requires “multiple reviews” and approval from not one, but two, government agencies. Klamath Water Users Protective Assn. ,

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

PMA Preemption Decision Slides to the Bottom of the “Parallel Claim” Slippery Slope

Drug & Device Law

312 (2008), that essentially all product liability claims against manufacturers of FDA pre-market approved (“PMA”) medical devices were preempted. 341 (2001), which put an end to any doubt about this proposition. Back in 2008, the United States Supreme Court held, in Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc. , at 356 (emphasis added).

FDA 59
article thumbnail

Contract Claim Based on Alleged CGMP Violations Held Impliedly Preempted

Drug & Device Law

The parties’ contract required the supplier to deliver components that “meet FDA standards for medical devices.” The manufacturer claimed that the supplier breached the contract when it delivered components that, according to the manufacturer, violated the FDA’s Current Good Manufacturing Practices (CGMP) regulations. 4, 353 (2001).

FDA 59
article thumbnail

Thinking About the FDA’s Alternative Summary Reporting Program

Drug & Device Law

He came across several preemption decisions involving defendants who employed the FDA’s “alternative summary reporting” (“ASR”) system that the agency operated for about 20 years, “from 1997 through June 2019.” without adversely affecting FDA’s ability to monitor and react to such events. 18, 2022) ( available here ).

FDA 59
article thumbnail

Another Update on Medical Abortion Litigation

Drug & Device Law

FDA litigation, back in April, the United States Supreme Court had just stayed what we described as “a truly ridiculous decision purporting to invalidate a number of actions taken by FDA with regard to mifepristone, the only currently marketed approved medication for medical abortion.” 341 (2001), is so important. FDA , 727 F.

FDA 59
article thumbnail

Another Update on Medical Abortion Litigation

Drug & Device Law

FDA litigation, back in April, the United States Supreme Court had just stayed what we described as “a truly ridiculous decision purporting to invalidate a number of actions taken by FDA with regard to mifepristone, the only currently marketed approved medication for medical abortion.” 341 (2001), is so important. FDA , 727 F.

FDA 52