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
Notable transactions in the consumer and member tech category include: Pear Therapeutics , software-based medicine provider, made its mark in 2017 as its tool became the first digital therapeutic approved by the FDA with claims to improve clinical outcomes.
Neurolutions, founded in 2007, has positioned itself as a leader in the application of non-invasive BCI technology for post-stroke rehabilitation. This support is delivered through a dedicated team of licensed clinicians and a user-friendly mobile application. as its CEO.
We are not looking do either of those, but we will weigh in on what NPP means for non-product liability cases involving FDA-regulated medical products. A hundred years later, we detailed three rounds of litigation over Massachusetts’ serial efforts to ban, or at least substantially limit, the use of FDA-approved pain medications.
The core premise of Bexis’ article is very simple: Once the FDA has said “yes” and approved a particular drug for a particular indication (“intended use”) for sale in the United States, federal preemption precludes any state from saying say “no” and trying to ban that same FDA-approved drug. T]he growing market for mifepristone. . .
But in prescription medical product liability litigation, products must receive FDA approval, clearance or other authorization (hereafter, collectively referred to as “approval” for short) before they can be marketed. Are manufacturers liable only for failing to employ an alternative design that the FDA has approved for distribution. . .
2007 WL 4042757, at *3 (N.D. 15, 2007); McNeil 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. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. ,
For qualified IMGs, it issues a certification, which IMGs can then use to apply to residency and other graduate medical education programs and to apply for state medical licenses. Such power rests solely with the FDA.” The unfortunate truth is that ECFMG was also a victim of this fake doctor’s fraud. 471 (11th Cir. 2d 775, 799 & n.114
2012), addressed a challenge to the application of Idaho’s Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act to criminalize the use of an FDA-approved abortifacient medication obtained through an internet prescription and mailed to the plaintiff from out of state. 124 (2007), which would also be knocked out by Dobbs if it sticks. 472 (2013).
As you must know by now, the pelvic mesh MDL court ruled that the FDA 510(k) regulatory clearance of pelvic mesh devices was irrelevant because such clearance was not probative of safety. After some FDA inquiries, the defendant eventually submitted a separate 510(k) application for the product, and it was cleared in May of 2008.
544 (2007), and Ashcroft v. These allegations lack any contention or inference that [defendant] withheld or misrepresented information to the FDA. . ., It does not give him license to evade the less rigid ? It does not, however, give a plaintiff “license to evade the less rigid ? Twombly , 550 U.S. Iqbal , 556 U.S.
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