Remove Drugs Remove FDA 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
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

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

Drug & Device Law

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

article thumbnail

A Thorny PMA Preemption Decision from Rhode Island

Drug & Device Law

Plaintiff’s primary allegation is that the clips have a migration rate higher than what was reported to the FDA. Since the clips are PMA, the first prong is met—PMA devices have specific FDA requirements. Plaintiff did not allege that the design of the clips deviated from the FDA approved design.

FDA 52
article thumbnail

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

Drug & Device Law

So plaintiffs will not be able to hide the truth of FDA regulation from the jury on retrial, while misleading the jury, nor try the same trick in any other pelvic mesh case in New Jersey going forward. which caused the claimant’s harm was subject to premarket approval or licensure by the federal Food and Drug Administration. . .