Drug & Device Law

MAY 30, 2022

The law presumes that licensed doctors know what they are doing. 1978), where a hypertensive patient was injured after being injected with the defendant’s drug – despite warnings that “expressly directed the doctor administering the drug to refrain from giving it to a patient with hypertension.” See also Rodriguez v.

Testimonials 59

Testimonials Doctors Production Laboratories 59

Drug & Device Law

NOVEMBER 9, 2023

357 (2002); United States v. That’s a significant step forward, since it aligns the FDA’s view of permissible science more closely to what doctors (and Medicare) actually rely on in clinical situations. E.g. , Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc. , 552 (2011); Thompson v. Western States Medical Center , 535 U.S. Caronia , 703 F.3d FDA , 119 F.

FDA 64

FDA Nurses Production Regulations 64

Drug & Device Law

JUNE 13, 2022

That requirement comes with an exception: Provided, however , That such information may be omitted from the dispensing package if, but only if, the article is a device for which directions, hazards, warnings, and other information are commonly known to practitioners licensed by law to use the device. Bard, Inc. , 3d 1272 (11th Cir.

Testimonials 59

Testimonials Licensing Licensing FDA 59