Remove 2013 Remove Packaging Remove Testimonials
article thumbnail

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

Agency IQ

DSCSA implementation – Down to the wire as a deadline draws near: The Drug Supply Chain Security Act (DSCSA) was enacted in 2013 as part of the Drug Quality and Security Act (DQSA), following several drug counterfeiting scandals in which falsified medical products entered the supply chain.

FDA 40
article thumbnail

Article FDA Thank You Congress prepares to markup pandemic legislation, all but confirming FDA-related provisions won’t advance

Agency IQ

PAHPA has been reauthorized several times since its original passage, including as the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Reauthorization Act of 2013 (PAHPRA) and the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness and Advancing Innovation Act of 2019 (PAHPAIA). In the 2013 version, the second “P” stood for “Preparedness.”

FDA 40
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. They excluded bogus expert testimony under Fed. Further, “adequacy” is an objective standard, that neither a plaintiff’s self-interested testimony nor equivocal health care provider testimony can touch.

article thumbnail

Confident Learned Intermediaries Defeat Warning Causation

Drug & Device Law

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. 2013 WL 4516160, at *3 (N.M. Accord Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories Co. Medrano , 28 S.W.3d

article thumbnail

Unimpressed Learned Intermediaries Defeat Warning Causation

Drug & Device Law

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. . .