Drug & Device Law

DECEMBER 4, 2023

662, 679 (2009). 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. But Supreme Court precedent is clear, “pleadings that. .

Fraud 52

Fraud FDA Hospitals Doctors 52

Drug & Device Law

JULY 24, 2023

Nonetheless, the Ninth Circuit’s PATDC82 I allowed a RICO claim alleging that, between 1999 and 2011, defendants concealed that risk from the FDA and that, as a result, every TPP in the country paid for Actos prescriptions that it otherwise would not have reimbursed. But the FDA has concluded just the opposite. 3d 1243 (9th Cir.

Fraud 52

Fraud FDA Doctors 52

Drug & Device Law

MAY 4, 2023

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

FDA Fraud Compliance 64

Drug & Device Law

FEBRUARY 16, 2023

Back in the antediluvian era of the Bone Screw Litigation some 25 years ago, Bexis was responsible for crafting (and sometimes outright inventing, see fraud on the FDA) defenses for that then-unusual medical device-related mass tort. However, those claimed alternatives “were not yet cleared by the FDA” for the use at issue in Baksic.

FDA 59

FDA Fraud Doctors 59

Drug & Device Law

JANUARY 30, 2023

555 (2009), and rated only a “ cf. 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. 2019), or Mutual Pharmaceutical Co. Bartlett , 570 U.S.

FDA 72

FDA Fraud Governance Medicare 72

Drug & Device Law

DECEMBER 30, 2022

When you hear Class III medical device product liability case, you should look for all claims to be dismissed unless there is something as unusual as a basis to claiming the plaintiff’s particular device deviated from its FDA-approved specifications. An unfortunate fiction developed post- Buckman —particularly after Riegel v. Stryker Corp. ,

FDA 59

FDA Fraud 59

Drug & Device Law

NOVEMBER 7, 2022

We’ve written several posts about ridiculous absolute liability theories seeking to hold drug manufacturers liable simply for making an FDA approved prescription drug. The defendant’s drug in Wilkins was the only FDA-approved medication for the treatment of a rare disease ( Fabry Disease ). Genzyme Corp. 2022 WL 4237528 (D.

FDA 72

FDA Fraud Doctors 72

Drug & Device Law

APRIL 21, 2022

662 (2009), which together stand for the proposition that to state a claim and avoid dismissal a plaintiff must allege facts that plausibly suggest that the defendant is liable. The plaintiff asserted all the usual claims and then one: manufacturing defect; failure to warn; breach of warranty; and fraud. Twombly , 550 U.S.

FDA 59

FDA Fraud 59

Drug & Device Law

MARCH 7, 2022

662 (2009)) pleading standard simply doesn’t apply to punitive damages: [O]n a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the “plausibility” pleading regime addresses the types of facts a plaintiff must allege to make out a cause of action, not the types of damages the alleged cause of action may eventually warrant. . . . Twombly , 550 U.S. Iqbal , 556 U.S.

Fraud 59

Fraud FDA Licensing Pharmaceutical Industry 59

Drug & Device Law

FEBRUARY 24, 2022

One tack they take is to argue that Buckman is limited to its facts and thus applies only to state-law fraud-on-the-FDA claims. Still, the Chong court should be commended for taking “a fresh look at the governing FDA regulations” and acknowledging that it had previously “incorrectly decided” a “nearly identical” case.

FDA 72

FDA Governance Fraud 72