Remove 2015 Remove FDA Remove Informed Consent
article thumbnail

SQA Regulatory Surveillance Summary | Monthly Update 2023 – January

SQA

Of interest is a reference to the FDA’s draft document “Computer Software Assurance for Production and Quality System Software,” which was recently published on 13 September 2022. PCPC looks forward to working with the FDA and key stakeholders to implement this important legislation.

article thumbnail

Can Children Consent to the COVID Vaccine? The Case of Foster Care and Juvenile Justice

Bill of Health

5] Stephanie Anne Deutsch & Kristine Fortin, Physical Health Problems and Barriers to Optimal Health Care Among Children in Foster Care , 45 Current Problems in Pediatric and Adolescent Health Care 286, 286 (2015); Council on Foster Care et al., 3] Bell, supra note 99 at 26. [4]

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

article thumbnail

Suing the Certifiers – A Dangerous Undertaking

Drug & Device Law

Anyway, this fraudulent “doctor” allegedly “touched them without informed consent” and caused them “emotional distress. 2015 WL 6393869 (S.D. 21, 2015): Mississippi does not recognize any cause of action against a voluntary non-profit trade association like TMA. . . . [T]he Such power rests solely with the FDA.”

Doctors 52
article thumbnail

Confident Learned Intermediaries Defeat Warning Causation

Drug & Device Law

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. . . 2015); Legard v.

FDA 59
article thumbnail

The BFDs – The Ten Best Prescription Drug/Medical Device Decisions of 2023

Drug & Device Law

Since the FDA requires pre-approval of any warnings about off-label uses, preemption at some point should have been pre-ordained under the Mensing ( 2011+1 ) independence principle, but off-label use did not really figure in Zofran ’s analysis. The FDA’s five reviews of teratogenic risk all came to the same conclusion.

FDA 105
article thumbnail

Who Needs a Lawyer in the Eleventh Circuit?

Drug & Device Law

The plaintiff in Jacob sued the manufacturer of a Class III, FDA premarket-approved medical device. First, the plaintiff’s non-parallel claims were “preempted to the extent” that they would have imposed “alleged labeling or manufacturing requirements that are different from, or in addition to, those imposed by the FDA.” 341 (2001).