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
The 51 regulations that FDA is currently working on The FDA today unveiled its much-anticipated Spring 2023 Unified Agenda, a document outlining the regulations the agency plans to release in 2023 and beyond. The anticipated date of publication is June 2023, meaning we should see this regulation imminently.
The testimony of witnesses and the Senators themselves largely agreed on the designation, but diverged on questions of liability exemptions. How the agency plans to regulate PFAS via CERCLA In late 2021, the EPA published the PFAS Strategic Roadmap , which laid out the planned PFAS strategy for the agency between 2021 and 2024.
What We Expect the FDA to do in July 2023 In this ongoing feature, AgencyIQ looks at public data to determine what the FDA is likely to do in the month ahead, including key deadlines, meetings, events, planned regulations, comment periods and more.
What We Expect the FDA to do in October 2023 In this ongoing feature, AgencyIQ looks at public data to determine what the FDA is likely to do in the month ahead, including key deadlines, meetings, events, planned regulations, comment periods and more.
What We Expect the FDA to do in November 2023 In this ongoing feature, AgencyIQ looks at public data to determine what the FDA is likely to do in the month ahead, including key deadlines, meetings, events, planned regulations, comment periods and more. November is packed with regulatory and industry meetings.
In this piece, AgencyIQ explains what a government shutdown would mean for FDA’s regulatory processes and for the industry it regulates. AgencyIQ thought this would be a good time to go over what a government shutdown means for the FDA, and therefore what regulated industry needs to know. What are the impacts for regulated industry?
In the United States, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has developed a PFAS Roadmap and proposed numerous regulations for managing the effects PFAS has on the environment and human health. TSCA also focuses on regulating chemical substances which may present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment.
” The Patent Trail Rather than relying on social media, company websites, and testimonials, I consulted the Patent and Trademark database to reconstruct the story of invention. Lume commercially debuted in August 2022. If each ingredient is recognized as safe, then manufacturing complies with FDA regulations.
What We Expect the FDA to do in December 2023 In this ongoing feature, AgencyIQ looks at public data to determine what the FDA is likely to do in the month ahead, including key deadlines, meetings, events, planned regulations, comment periods and more. The December calendar is packed with regulatory and industry meetings.
And following the reauthorizations of several of the FDA’s user fee programs in late 2022 – PDUFA, GDUFA, MDUFA and BsUFA – the FDA has an enormous amount of things it has committed to doing as of October 1, 2023. Therefore many of the FDA’s deadlines are tied to the start or end of the fiscal year.
22 (both articles for the proposition that there are “‘many intense side effects’ and ‘significant complications requiring medical attention’” resulting” from FDA’s regulation of mifepristone), at *22 n.37 19, 2021) (admitting and excluding Studnicki testimony); Whole Woman’s Health Alliance v. We were hardly alone. Longbons T.,
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. As a matter of science, the purported link was imaginary, as discussed at great length in one of the many excellent Zantac ( 2022+4 ) MDL opinions. Bonta , 85 F.4th
2023), was the Fifth Circuit’s blatantly politicized attack on the FDA’s regulation of abortion-related drugs. There’s no science to back any of the allegations up – as demonstrated by the masterful (and even longer) take down of nearly identical substantive allegations in the Zantac ( 2022+4 ) MDL. FDA , 78 F.4th 4th 210 (5th Cir.
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.
3d , 2022 WL 6225596 (S.D. 7, 2022), which addressed the same question in the context of the admissibility of expert testimony. Another decision in the same case reached the same result: In the United States, the FDA regulates the sale of medical devices. 2022 WL 6225661, at *5 (S.D. Baksic relied on Pizzitola v.
2022 WL 3147194 (C.D. 2022), review denied (Cal. July 13, 2022). The final bullet point, concerning due process is the focus of the defendants’ petition for certiorari with the United States Supreme Court, filed on November 10, 2022, and currently pending at Johnson & Johnson v State of California , No. Ethicon, Inc.
3d , 2022 WL 16571057 (M.D.N.C. 13, 2022), involved Dr. Jaqueline Moline, and her increasingly questionable paper “Mesothelioma Associated with the Use of Cosmetic Talc,” 62 J. While cosmetic talc is not a drug or medical device, the FDA also regulates it (the “C” in the FDCA). Bell , 2022 WL 16571057, at *2 (citations omitted).
The FDA’s regulations for medical device labeling generally require that such labeling include “any relevant hazards, contraindications, side effects, and precautions.” 2022 WL 970681 (N.D. March 31, 2022); Robinson v. 3d , 2022 WL 614919 (S.D. March 2, 2022). Robinson , 2022 WL 614919, at *4 (citations omitted).
Aurora Healthcare , 2022 WL 1657559 (Wisc. May 25, 2022), the Wisconsin Court of Appeals reversed a lower court’s granting of an injunction compelling treatment with ivermectin. The case was brought by a Covid-19 patient’s nephew, who was acting as the patient’s health care representative. None of those concerns were implicated here.
March 21, 2022), is the pelvic mesh case of the week, and it involves a variety of plaintiff challenges to the defendant’s experts. There is also a more detailed and nuanced discussion of challenges to a defense regulatory expert, particularly regarding testimony about testing, than is normally the case in mesh decisions. Ethicon, Inc.
2022 WL 614919 (S.D. The Federal Rules of Evidence do not permit an expert to render conclusions of law, because such testimony cannot properly assist the jury in understanding the evidence or determining a fact in issue. Rather, expert testimony couched as legal conclusion merely tells the jury which result to reach.
Texas March 2, 2022)— is a veritable mixed bag. The issue in Robinson was the admissibility of testimony by the plaintiff’s regulatory expert. When we consider the damage a regulatory expert can do, misinterpreting both company documents and FDA regulations to make the company look like Murder, Inc., Ethicon, Inc. Evidence 402?
2022 WL 326781 (D. 3, 2022), the plaintiff alleged that he was injured when the defendants’ modular hip implant fractured seven years after it was implanted in him. Vollrath , 2022 WL 326781 at *3-4. their testimony does not present a genuine issue of medical fact.” In Vollrath v. Depuy Synthes Business Entities, et al.,
2022 WL 425206 (N.D. 11, 2022), granted a Rule 702 motion excluding plaintiff’s purported FDA expert Peggy Pence, who “began working as an expert witness for plaintiffs in product liability cases in 2008” and “approximately 100% of her work was as a plaintiff’s expert in product liability litigation.” Feb. 2022 WL 409638 (N.D.
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