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
By 1987, the FDA licensed zidovudine after trials showed it increased survival rates. Doctors began prescribing combinations of three or more antiretrovirals in 1995, making it unlikely that a mutant HIV strain resistant to one drug could evade the others. This has happened before with other drugs.
You never need an authorization from a licensed professional to buy pork or fireworks. They can regulate doctors, pharmacies, and grocery stores, but cannot ban an FDA-approved drug like they can pork that comes from pigs not raised in a specific way, the gist of the California law at issue in NPP. Prescription drugs are not.
at *1, by threatening to revoke the license, and jail for at least three years, any West Virginia physician so bold as to prescribe the plaintiff’s FDA-approved drug for its FDA-approved use. First, relief was not dependent on “third-party action” – that of prescribing physicians and intermediate distributors. at *6 (citations omitted).
Apparently, a fraudulent foreign-trained “doctor” treated the plaintiffs, none of whom claimed malpractice or any physical injury whatsoever. Anyway, this fraudulent “doctor” allegedly “touched them without informed consent” and caused them “emotional distress. 23 in its current form. at *3) Rule 23(c)(4) partial class.
The law presumes that licenseddoctors 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.
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