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
FDA , 78 F.4th 2023), was the Fifth Circuit’s blatantly politicized attack on the FDA’s regulation of abortion-related drugs. The questionable allegations of that single complaint thus effectively trumped many years of the FDA’s science-based decision-making. The FDA, for one, advised patients to keep using these drugs.
2010) (Matsen); Nelson v. While cosmetic talc is not a drug or medical device, the FDA also regulates it (the “C” in the FDCA). 3d 213, 222-23, 229-32 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) (Etminan); Gerke v. Travelers Casualty Insurance Co. , 316, 328-29 (D. 2013) (Painter); McClellan v. I-Flow Corp. , 2d 1092, 1119-25 (D. Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co.
Anyway, this fraudulent “doctor” allegedly “touched them without informedconsent” and caused them “emotional distress. Smith, LLC , 2010 WL 11566367, at *7 (N.D. May 14, 2010) (“Defendant [standards institute’s] standards are voluntary, consensus standards, and Defendant. . . Such power rests solely with the FDA.”
The prescriber] provided explicit, uncontroverted testimony that, even when provided with the most current research and FDA mandated warnings, as well as the information found in [defendant’s] updated. . . 8, 2019) (no causation where prescriber “testified that none of the additional risk information. . . Accord Dietz v.
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