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
Within the realm of FDA-required labeling, there are currently a few different types of information a sponsor might develop specifically for patient use: medication guides, instructions for use (IFU), consumer medical information (CMI) and patient package inserts (PPI).
Section 2008 Improved Consumer Confidence Reports amended the Safe Drinking Water Act section 1414(c)(4) to revise requirements for Consumer Confidence Reports (CCR). EPA recently reclassified several areas as Severe nonattainment areas for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. These areas include Dallas-Fort Worth, TX, Denver-Boulder-Greeley-Ft.
2008 WL 11344752, at *2 (D. April 22, 2008); Isham v. 2008 WL 2622791, at *4 (N.D. July, 1, 2008) (“provision of a manual for software does not convert the transaction from one for a software service to one for both tangible goods and service”). 2008) (all quoting and following Pierson definition of product).
The law presumes that licensed doctors know what they are doing. This scenario was the “third hypothetical” in our “ Learned Intermediary Rule 201 ” post back in 2008. W]e believe that a drug manufacturer cannot be required legally to foresee that a licensed physician will disregard express warnings regarding a drug’s use. . . .
In Arizona, a manufacturer cannot be liable for punitive damages if the product was “designed, manufactured, packaged, labeled, sold or represented in relevant and material respects according to the terms of an approval, conditional approval, clearance, license or similar determination of a government agency.”
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