Drug & Device Law

SEPTEMBER 11, 2023

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.” FDA , 727 F. That’s why Buckman Co.

FDA 59

FDA Doctors Malpractice COVID-19 59

Drug & Device Law

AUGUST 28, 2023

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.” FDA , 727 F. That’s why Buckman Co.

FDA 52

FDA Doctors Malpractice COVID-19 52

Drug & Device Law

APRIL 19, 2022

Not too long ago we researched precedent that forbade persons claiming to be “FDA experts” from opining that products are “adulterated” or “misbranded.” 2002) (prohibiting expert testimony on FDCA term “materially misleading”); Torres v. citations omitted). Other appellate decisions cited in Xue are: United States v. Barile , 286 F.3d

FDA 72

FDA Governance 72

Drug & Device Law

NOVEMBER 10, 2022

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

FDA Doctors Fraud Governance 52

Drug & Device Law

JUNE 13, 2022

But in the device area – we looked, but did not find an analogous FDA regulatory exception for drugs – the FDA has itself recognized this common-sense, and common-law, exception to the duty to warn. Somewhat surprisingly, at least until recently, there hasn’t been much case law addressing the FDA’s “commonly known” hazard exception.

FDA 59

FDA Licensing Doctors Nurses 59

Drug & Device Law

JANUARY 9, 2023

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. The rulemaking process governing monographs was replaced with an administrative order process. Levine , 555 U.S. Plaintiffs Legal Committee , 531 U.S.

FDA 59

FDA Governance Nurses 59

Drug & Device Law

JANUARY 30, 2023

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. Lohr , 518 U.S.

FDA 72

FDA Fraud Governance Medicare 72