Remove 2002 Remove FDA Remove Fraud
article thumbnail

CPAP MDL Overinflates Plaintiffs’ Claims

Drug & Device Law

2002). “[I]t is not the role of a federal court to expand state law in ways not foreshadowed by state precedent.” CPAP II shrugs off plaintiffs’ repeated allegations that defendants “failed to apprise the FDA” of this or that, with the excuse that plaintiffs don’t really “rely” on them. Ford Motor Co. , 3d 661, 680 (3d Cir.

Fraud 52
article thumbnail

Comment K, Presumptions, and Medical Device Design Defects Under Texas Law

Drug & Device Law

Texas, unlike most states, enforces a strong statutory presumption that prescription medical product warnings complying with FDA requirements imposed by “pre-market approval or licensing of the product” are adequate as a matter of law. March 4, 2005), rev’d on other grounds , 462 F.3d 3d 364 (5th Cir. American Home Products Corp. ,

FDA 59
Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

article thumbnail

California Appellate Court Reaffirms Federal Preemption, Learned Intermediary Doctrine in Amiodarone Cases

Drug & Device Law

3, 2002) (to be published), the California Court of Appeal held that federal law preempts state law failure-to-warn claims alleging that branded and generic drug manufacturers did not ensure that patients received FDA-approved Medication Guides for amiodarone, a heart medicine. In Amiodarone Cases , No. A161023, 2022 WL 16646728 (Cal.

FDA 52
article thumbnail

A Texas Mess

Drug & Device Law

That Complaint alleges various antivax conspiracy theories concerning COVID-19 vaccines, the FDA, emergency use authorizations, and the media that have circulated since these vaccines first became available. The FDA, however, did not and does not share that belief. FDA (8/23/21) press release (emphasis original).

article thumbnail

Logical Contradiction Doctrine:  Buckman for Textualists

Drug & Device Law

470 (1996), was decided – removing express preemption as a defense for manufacturers of §510(k) products So defendants moved on fraud on the FDA under an implied preemption theory and won. Plaintiffs Legal Committee , 531 U.S. Mensing , 564 U.S. Mensing , 564 U.S. Mensing , 564 U.S. Lohr , 518 U.S. Lohr , 518 U.S.

FDA 72