article thumbnail

Another RICOdiculous Decision

Drug & Device Law

341 (2001). the relationship between [plaintiff] and its pharmacy benefit manager. . . Apparently, massive loss of evidence was merely a “usual and customary service” of pharmacy benefit mangers nationwide. What’s worse, the fraud on the FDA claim, if brought under state law, would be preempted by Buckman Co. 555, 565 (E.D.

article thumbnail

The FDA and Feasible Alternative Designs

Drug & Device Law

151, 163-68 (2001)) (lengthy discussion of FDA regulatory process omitted). In at least the short term, a popular pain reliever would have to be removed from pharmacies. 7, 2022), which addressed the same question in the context of the admissibility of expert testimony. His testimony is thus irrelevant and inadmissible.

FDA 59