Remove 2011 Remove FDA Approval Remove Marketing Remove Testimonials
article thumbnail

Malarkey ? The Ten Worst Prescription Drug/Medical Device Decisions of 2023

Drug & Device Law

Shikada is the first appellate decision creating a state-law warning-based duty (here, via a consumer protection claim, brought by the state rather than anyone actually claiming injury) based solely on pharmacogenomics − racially/ethnically-based genetic variations − allegedly affecting the effectiveness of FDA-approved prescription drugs.

article thumbnail

Another RICOdiculous Decision

Drug & Device Law

To put that in context, the Actos label also carries the FDA’s most serious type of warning – a boxed warning – but for congestive heart failure, not bladder cancer. precipitously” after the 2011 label change adding the bladder cancer language, a “significant number” of claims would not have been reimbursed by TPPs nationwide.

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

article thumbnail

The BFDs – The Ten Best Prescription Drug/Medical Device Decisions of 2023

Drug & Device Law

2023) (remote trial testimony cannot be compelled beyond Rule 45’s 100-mile limit on subpoenas) ( here ); Carson v. F-150 & Ranger Truck Fuel Economy Marketing & Sales Practices Litigation , 65 F.4th They excluded bogus expert testimony under Fed. Bonta , 85 F.4th 4th 1263 (9th Cir. 4th 1030 (9th Cir. Monsanto Co. ,

article thumbnail

Pro Se Plaintiff Tries and Fails To Plead Claims For Failure To Withdraw And Failure To Warn

Drug & Device Law

In two of these cases, our client won summary judgment at the trial court level and an appellate court ended up creating a new cause of action to accommodate the plaintiff’s theory (and lack of helpful testimony from the prescribing physician). 604 (2011), and Mutual Pharm. Wyeth Ayerst Pharms. , 3d 364 (1st Cir. 3d 1034 (S.D.

article thumbnail

The FDA and Feasible Alternative Designs

Drug & Device Law

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.” Are manufacturers liable only for failing to employ an alternative design that the FDA has approved for distribution. . .

FDA 59