Remove 2009 Remove Pharmaceuticals Remove Testimonials
article thumbnail

Analysis Life Sciences Thank You The 51 regulations that FDA is currently working on

Agency IQ

to provide notice and an opportunity for owners or consignees of the drug to appear before the Agency and introduce testimony prior to the destruction of their drug. To implement that authority, FDA published a final rule in the Federal Register on September 15, 2015 [80 FR 55237] which revised 21 CFR 1.94

article thumbnail

Analysis Life Sciences Thank You Everything the FDA is planning to do in Q3 2023

Agency IQ

A big nitrosamine deadline approaches : Unless you’ve been hiding under a rock for the last few years, you’ve probably heard about major issues that the pharmaceutical industry has been having with nitrosamine contamination. But despite the law’s age, it is not yet fully operational.

FDA 40
Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Trending Sources

article thumbnail

Another RICOdiculous Decision

Drug & Device Law

We’ve discussed recently how a federal statute intended to allow suits against international terrorists has been misapplied as allowing suits against pharmaceutical companies. Takeda Pharmaceuticals Co. , Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. , at *6 (plaintiff “has documents and formularies reaching back to only 2009”).

article thumbnail

Dealing with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s Non-Decision on Standards Compliance Evidence

Drug & Device Law

Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. , 2019), analogously held that the standard for admission of expert testimony was “procedural” and therefore Pennsylvania’s Frye rule applied, not Texas’ stricter expert admissibility standard. 2009) (en banc), decided before Tincher adopted consumer expectations as a Pennsylvania design defect test.

article thumbnail

50-State Survey of State Court Decisions Supporting Expert-Related Judicial Gatekeeping

Drug & Device Law

We think that they can, and for a state (like Pennsylvania and a number of others) that still follows the “ Frye ” standard looking to the “general acceptance” of expert testimony as the touchstone to admissibility, a Rule 702 state-law equivalent might look something like this: Rule 702. E.g. , Walsh v. BASF Corp. , 3d 446, 461 (Pa.

article thumbnail

We Said It Before; We’ll Say It Again – Drug/Device Companies Should Join PLAC

Drug & Device Law

We continue to believe that PLAC membership helps pharmaceutical and medical device defendants litigate stronger (through inter-industry cooperation on shared issues of concern), smarter (through cutting edge CLE and webinars), and more efficiently (utilizing PLAC’s online knowledge base and other resources). case ( Conte ) in 2009.

article thumbnail

The FDA and Feasible Alternative Designs

Drug & Device Law

The court in Wolfe refused to impose a negligence duty on the defendant pharmaceutical company to develop and obtain FDA approval of the plaintiff’s non-FDA-approved alternative. 7, 2022), which addressed the same question in the context of the admissibility of expert testimony. were not approved by the FDA in 2009. . . .

FDA 59