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
Some children may be unvaccinated by no choice of their own, but instead because of decisions made by parents, guardians, or state or local government officials. 325, 338 (2005). [21] In this post, I argue that young people should have the opportunity to consent to vaccines. Barnette , 319 U.S. 624, 63 S.Ct.
FDA Guidance on EUA, Jan 2017 *Notes: Section 564 as in the Food, Drug and Cosmetic (FD&C Act); PAHPRA refers to the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Reauthorization Act of 2015 One area of current concern is the lack of diagnostic testing capability in the US to rapidly detect and confirm new cases.
Biden’s calls for bipartisanship to extend health programs like pandemic-era subsidies for Affordable Care Act health plans are expected to clash with conservative demands to slash federal government spending. Rovner: Sarah, is the FDA worried about this case? They said they don’t think that would help.
Put simply, among the morass of Medicare are provisions governing Medicare Advantage programs, which companies can elect to provide and eligible people can elect to receive. 308 (2005), which comes up not infrequently in drug and device product liability cases. Darue Eng’g & Mfg. ,
That is significant because, unlike (now) every other state in the country, since 1987 Pennsylvania precedent prohibited defendants from introducing evidence of their compliance with government and/or industry standards (“standards compliance” or “compliance” evidence, for short) in strict liability design defect cases – generally.
312 (2008), that essentially all product liability claims against manufacturers of FDA pre-market approved (“PMA”) medical devices were preempted. at 349 (“The FDCA leaves no doubt that it is the Federal Government rather than private litigants who are authorized to file suit for noncompliance”). Medtronic, Inc. ,
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.
The first thing defendant asked the court to do was take judicial notice of the drug’s labels from the FDA website. First, courts “regularly take judicial notice of materials prepared by government agencies.” This time to survive plaintiff is going to have to move the focus off himself and onto his prescriber and the FDA.
Back in 2010, we examined one restrictive judicial gloss on Rule 407 – a “policy” based exception that the rule somehow doesn’t apply to government-mandated measures. Fortunately, that 2010 decision has been a pro-plaintiff anomaly, and FDA required label changes, recalls, etc. continue to be subject to Rule 407-based exclusion.
Not too long ago we researched precedent that forbade persons claiming to be “FDA experts” from opining that products are “adulterated” or “misbranded.” 2005 WL 730688, at *4 (E.D. March 29, 2005) (same). But since we recently ran across an unusually favorable new case on this subject, we thought we’d address it again.
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