Remove 2005 Remove FDA Remove Fraud
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. American Home Products , 2005 WL 2277518, at *11 (S.D. 341 (2001).

Fraud 52
article thumbnail

Twombly and Iqbal Taken Seriously: Express-Preemption Dismissal

Drug & Device Law

The plaintiff asserted all the usual claims and then one: manufacturing defect; failure to warn; breach of warranty; and fraud. Plaintiffs alleged that manufactured had failed to investigate and report the event to the FDA as purportedly required. For example, the court took judicial notice of an FDA recall notice. McMullen v.

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

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

Drug & Device Law

Wyeth , 2005 WL 544222, at *6 (N.D. March 4, 2005), rev’d on other grounds , 462 F.3d 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.

FDA 59
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