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

Another RICOdiculous Decision

Drug & Device Law

This time-tested type of evidence is mostly absent from the analysis in PATDC82 II – as in Neurontin , the only actual prescriber testimony belied plaintiffs’ position. Without any consideration of what actual doctors did for actual patients with actual diseases, all that was proven was the maxim “garbage in, garbage out.”

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. 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.

article thumbnail

Another Reason Why The FDA, Not Litigants, Approves Products

Drug & Device Law

Congress created an FDA approval process that is both rigorous and thorough, and pharmaceutical companies invest billions of dollars in research and development to meet FDA’s scientific standards. Doctors Who Perform Abortions: Their Characteristics & Patterns of Holding & Using Hospital Privileges,” 6.

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.