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
23, 2010) ( here ), can supersede our list, so far they’ve been thankfully uncommon. The logic of the consumer fraud claim made no sense. Letting plaintiffs use RICO (or the False Claims Act) to bring fraud on the FDA claims (preemption only applies to state law) is a distinct minority position, but the Ninth Circuit has.
2010) (Matsen); Nelson v. Moline obtained from her employer’s institutional review board to conduct the article was structured to “reference[] federal regulations governing human subject research,” while simultaneously “waiv[ing] the requirement that Dr. Moline obtain informedconsent from the individuals whose cases she planned to study.”
Anyway, this fraudulent “doctor” allegedly “touched them without informedconsent” and caused them “emotional distress. The unfortunate truth is that ECFMG was also a victim of this fake doctor’s fraud. Smith, LLC , 2010 WL 11566367, at *7 (N.D. 2010); In re Welding Fume Products Liability Litigation , 526 F.
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