Remove 2001 Remove FDA Remove Governance
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
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

Stupid Expert Tricks Redux

Drug & Device Law

2001) (Kilburn); and Wade-Greaux v. While cosmetic talc is not a drug or medical device, the FDA also regulates it (the “C” in the FDCA). I-Flow Corp. , 2d 1092, 1119-25 (D. 2010) (Matsen); Nelson v. Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co. 1998 WL 1297690, at *4, 7-8 (W.D. 31, 1998), aff’d , 243 F.3d 3d 244 (6th Cir. Whitehall Laboratories, Inc. ,

article thumbnail

Zantac Chronicles – Concluding Chapters in the MDL

Drug & Device Law

Filing a citizen’s petition, Valisure shocked the FDA into an ill-advised recall by reporting that “tests found NDMA in ranitidine in excess of 3,000,000 ng [nanograms] per pill” – far above FDA’s 96 ng/day “daily limit.” The FDA recognized these results as bogus, “conclud[ing] that. . . 2022 WL 17480906, at *1.

FDA 59
article thumbnail

Split Decision

Drug & Device Law

The Court accurately perceived the issue as “not.simply a question of creating a new liability in the nature of a tort,” but rather one of “fiscal policy” and what branch of government properly sets such policy. Thus, the Standard Oil court rejected the government’s “tort law analogy” as a basis for “establishing. . . 2d 481, 489 (Md.