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
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.
It involves allegations against the manufacturer and distributor of surgical clips used in tubal ligation surgery—Class III Pre-Market Approved (“PMA”) medical devices. Defendant] had submitted these reports to the FDA , but the trial justice limited their evidentiary use to the duty-to-warn and notice issues. Coopersurgical, Inc.
2006) – a precedential holding that the same Pennsylvania rule barring strict liability claims against prescription drugs also applied to prescription medical devices − should not be followed because the plaintiffs in Creazzo were supposedly “pro se.” Medtronic, Inc. , but see Hahn v. Richter , 543 Pa. 558, 673 A.2d Tincher , 104 A.3d
It was thus “unfair for the trial court not to allow [defendant] to explain in response that it received 510(k) clearance to market the devices without clinical studies or trials.” which caused the claimant’s harm was subject to premarket approval or licensure by the federal Food and Drug Administration. . . Lohr , 518 U.S.
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