Remove Compliance Remove Drugs Remove FDA Compliance
article thumbnail

Clinical Data Standardization in Clinical Trials: FDA Compliance in Clinical Data Management

ProRelix Research

Considering the crucial role that the information generated from clinical trials play in the approval of new drugs, biological, and medical devices, it is only logical that the data garnered […] The post Clinical Data Standardization in Clinical Trials: FDA Compliance in Clinical Data Management appeared first on ProRelix Research.

article thumbnail

FDA End-of-Year Release of Warning Letters Impresses (or Depresses)

FDA Law Blog: Biosimilars

Maybe that’s also why FDA last week publicized the highest number of important Warning Letters of the year (compared with prior releases in 2023). Perhaps FDA wanted us to remember 2023 as the year FDA succeeded in uncovering critical defects in drug and device manufacturing, and in critical trials.

FDA 57
Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

article thumbnail

A Thorny PMA Preemption Decision from Rhode Island

Drug & Device Law

TBI was the first nationwide (or close to it) analysis of whether a given jurisdiction permitted, under state law, a “warning”-based cause of action against a manufacturer of an FDA-regulated prescription drug or medical device for allegedly failing to report adverse events to the FDA.

FDA 52
article thumbnail

Federal Officer Removal Fails In California

Drug & Device Law

In Watson , even though it was about FTC regulation, the Court took a shot at the notion that drug and device companies might try to remove their myriad product liability cases based on this statute if interpreted to cover mere regulation. 308 (2005), which comes up not infrequently in drug and device product liability cases.

article thumbnail

Perfect Defense §510(k) Compliance Win in New Jersey May Be Pyrrhic

Drug & Device Law

In these states, product liability claims are brought as negligence actions based on the reasonableness of a defendant’s conduct, and a defendant’s compliance with applicable governmental standards is typically relevant evidence. 22, 2015) (admitting §510(k) compliance in pelvic mesh case under North Carolina law). See Winebarger v.

article thumbnail

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

Drug & Device Law

That is significant because, unlike (now) every other state in the country, since 1987 Pennsylvania precedent prohibited defendants from introducing evidence of their compliance with government and/or industry standards (“standards compliance” or “compliance” evidence, for short) in strict liability design defect cases – generally.