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
On March 27, the FDA finalized a transition guidance document covering products that had been marketed under enforcement discretion policies during the PHE. First, by March 2021, manufacturers were expected to conclude a risk assessment of their approved or marketed products to assess the risk of nitrosamines.
Data from the 2012, 2016, and 2020 CDR and 1998, 2002, and 2006 Inventory Update Reporting (IUR) Rule are included in the PFAS Analytic Tools. While there are a variety of reporting thresholds, sites manufacturing or importing 25,000 pounds or more of a chemical substance in a given year are required to report to CDR.
This discordance, or lack of “ predictive validity ” when translating results across organismal boundaries, is perhaps most harmful in the biomedical field; despite extensive testing in mouse models, only 10 percent of drugs that make it to clinical trials ever make it to market. Adapted from Yoshiki and Moriwaki (2006).
2006) – a precedential holding that the same Pennsylvania rule barring strict liability claims against prescription drugs also applied to prescription medical devices − should not be followed because the plaintiffs in Creazzo were supposedly “pro se.” Central Medical Health Services, Inc. , Medtronic, Inc. , 2d 521 (Pa. Ethicon, Inc. ,
In product liability litigation generally, plaintiffs have been allowed to invent all kinds of “alternative” designs as long as some “expert” opines that the design (even if never before marketed) is “feasible.” 2006), app. 2006), app. For physicians to prescribe such a safer drug, it must reach the market. 2d 506 (N.Y.
Thus a confident learned intermediary’s testimony will defeat causation as a matter of law by stating that, notwithstanding a poor result, the treatment provided was standard of care, and even in hindsight they would not do anything different. Confident learned intermediaries stand by their medical decisions. Medrano , 28 S.W.3d 2d 141 (Pa.
The prescriber’s] testimony, however, does not establish that he would have altered his prescribing conduct. Given this testimony, the plaintiffs could not “show that stronger manufacturer warnings would have altered the physician’s prescribing conduct.” Plaintiff] has not identified any testimony from [the prescriber] that. . .
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 15,000+ 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