This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
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,
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. ,
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).
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).
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 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 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.
But in prescription medical product liability litigation, products must receive FDA approval, clearance or other authorization (hereafter, collectively referred to as “approval” for short) before they can be marketed. Are manufacturers liable only for failing to employ an alternative design that the FDA has approved for distribution. . .
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. Plaintiffs Legal Committee , 531 U.S. Mensing , 564 U.S. Mensing , 564 U.S.
555 (2009), a prescription drug preemption case, despite the relevant drug(s) being over-the-counter (“OTC”), and thus approved under an entirely different FDA regulatory process. 341, 352 (2001) (“neither an express pre-emption provision nor a saving clause bars the ordinary working of conflict pre-emption principles”).
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.
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. ,
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.
341 (2001), stands for the proposition that only the federal government may enforce the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and that any state-law claim that depends on the existence of the FDCA is impliedly preempted by 21 U.S.C. § Plaintiffs’ Legal Committee , 531 U.S. Plaintiffs constantly try to evade Buckman. Medtronic, Inc. ,
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 26,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content