Remove 2016 Remove Doctors Remove FDA Approval Remove Testimonials
article thumbnail

Article FDA Thank You In unanimous decision, Supreme Court solves FDA’s ‘standing’ issue

Agency IQ

In unanimous decision, Supreme Court solves FDA’s ‘standing’ issue Two lower courts had articulated a Rube Goldberg-esque theory of “standing” – the right of a person or organization to sue another entity – based on the idea that doctors not prescribing mifepristone or treating patients who had taken it had experienced economic harms.

FDA 40
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. The FDA requires real science for warnings; thus it had not mandated any warning remotely resembling Prop 65. Bonta , 85 F.4th 4th 1263 (9th Cir. 4th 1030 (9th Cir.

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

article thumbnail

Another Reason Why The FDA, Not Litigants, Approves Products

Drug & Device Law

On appeal, the Fifth Circuit overturned the District Court’s nullification of the FDA’s approvals of both branded and generic versions of mifepristone but affirmed that court’s voiding of both the 2016 risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (“REMS”) and 2021 non-enforcement decision that allowed telemedicine prescription of mifepristone.

FDA 59
article thumbnail

Last Nail in the Coffin for Dearinger

Drug & Device Law

Plaintiffs included in their motion for reconsideration a lengthy affidavit contending that the court’s decision dismissing their failure to warn claim was based on the wrong physician’s testimony. If accepted, the testimony may have altered the court’s analysis in the second motion for summary judgment. Allied Mut.