Remove 2004 Remove FDA Remove Fraud
article thumbnail

Health Provider News

Hall Render

continues crackdown on nursing homes, 2 more cited for poor care and ‘massive fraud’ Wow! Inman College of Nursing FDA clears Collierville startup CircumFix’s medical device for surgery, marketing FTC opposes Novant Health’s $320M hospital deal with Community Health Systems HCA CFO to retire HCA nets $5.2B

article thumbnail

CPAP MDL Overinflates Plaintiffs’ Claims

Drug & Device Law

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. We saw more of the same with the discussion of consumer fraud claims in CPAP II. Plaintiffs Legal Committee , 531 U.S. 341 (2001). 2023 WL 7019287, at *7.

Fraud 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

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

Drug & Device Law

2004); and Hackett v. 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. & Rem.

FDA 59
article thumbnail

Pretty Potent Mix In A Prescription Painkiller Preemption Decision

Drug & Device Law

2015), finally gave appellate recognition to the preemption of design defect claims for FDA-approved branded prescription drugs. FDA approved the drug with its particular formulation and the manufacturer could not have changed the formulation on its own. As detailed here , the decision in Yates v. Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharms.,

FDA 64
article thumbnail

Applying the Helpful but Problematic New Jersey Statute Creating a Rebuttable Compliance Presumption, the Third Circuit Affirms Dismissal of a Failure-to-Warn Claim

Drug & Device Law

2022), a short decision that came out the right way, but did so based on a problematic statute that creates a rebuttal presumption that warning labels approved by the FDA are adequate as a matter of state law. Stated differently, the rebuttal provision makes allegations and evidence of fraud on the FDA a prerequisite to state-law liability.