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
To protect against individuals or corporations utilizing these cells for profit, ála the Henrietta Lacks story, sophisticated informedconsent, and licenses should surely be developed, along with directives on responsibility for maintenance, warehousing, and disposal.,
This time, plaintiff pleaded “1) violation of [defendant’s] premarket approval; 2) breach of implied warranty; and 3) lack of informedconsent (failure to warn).” Id. 2012) (“A product is unreasonably dangerous because of a manufacturing defect if it was not built according to its intended design. . . .”). 341 (2001).
Anyway, this fraudulent “doctor” allegedly “touched them without informedconsent” and caused them “emotional distress. 2012 WL 3265002, at *5 (N.D. 8, 2012) (“For claims against trade associations in particular, public policy is ‘part of the legal mix’ and favors not imposing a duty.”); Lockman v. 3d 732, 745 (M.D.N.C.
2012), it had to apply the rule. 2012 WL 12848432, at *4 (E.D. 4, 2012) (no causation were, “[u]nderstanding the known risks,” the prescribing physicians testified that “they stand by their decisions to prescribe”), aff’d , 747 F.3d 2012); In re Zyprexa Products Liability Litigation , 2011 WL 182489, at *2 (E.D.N.Y.
2012) (no proof that hypothetical “Dear Doctor letter” or on-product warning would have causal effect given that risk had arisen only once in implanter’s several thousand similar surgeries) (applying Tennessee law); Eck v. Wyeth Pharmaceuticals , 2012 WL 1452556, at *?? (Pa. See also Rodriguez v. Stryker Co. , 3d 568, 576-77 (6th Cir.
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