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 proposed rule will identify certain bulk drug substances that FDA has considered and is proposing to place on the 503A Bulks List and certain bulk drug substances that FDA has considered and is proposing not to include on the 503A Bulks List. The final rule will amend the administrative destruction provisions in 21 CFR 1.94
To implement that authority, FDA published a final rule in the Federal Register on September 15, 2015 [80 FR 55237] which revised 21 CFR 1.94 to provide notice and an opportunity for owners or consignees of the drug to appear before the Agency and introduce testimony prior to the destruction of their drug.
To implement that authority, FDA published a final rule in the Federal Register on September 15, 2015 [80 FR 55237] which revised 21 CFR 1.94 to provide notice and an opportunity for owners or consignees of the drug to appear before the Agency and introduce testimony prior to the destruction of their drug. to include devices.
To put it bluntly: If standing to sue could be demonstrated by a physician who merely potentially treats a patient who may experience side effects, then presumably there would be little to protect the FDA from lawsuits filed by any physician against any drug or product the FDAapproves.
To implement that authority, FDA published a final rule in the Federal Register on September 15, 2015 [80 FR 55237] which revised 21 CFR 1.94 to provide notice and an opportunity for owners or consignees of the drug to appear before the Agency and introduce testimony prior to the destruction of their drug. to include devices.
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.
Congress created an FDAapproval process that is both rigorous and thorough, and pharmaceutical companies invest billions of dollars in research and development to meet FDA’s scientific standards. 19, 2021) (admitting and excluding Studnicki testimony); Whole Woman’s Health Alliance v.
at *2 (we’ve previously posted that such testimony is insufficient to establish causation ). The Court had none of it: Even assuming that the failure to describe the learning curve is not a preempted attack on FDA-approved information., The implanter had attended training with the manufacturer to learn the implant procedure.
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.
Shikada is the first appellate decision creating a state-law warning-based duty (here, via a consumer protection claim, brought by the state rather than anyone actually claiming injury) based solely on pharmacogenomics − racially/ethnically-based genetic variations − allegedly affecting the effectiveness of FDA-approved prescription drugs.
Not citing any case where such a distinction had been recognized, the Burton court held the difference between SJS and TEN, and the significance of such difference, to be questions of fact “that will require medical expert testimony to resolve.” Again, the Burton court stood on procedural ceremony so as to dodge the crucial issue.
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. It is not clear that [defendants] will − or even can − avail themselves of a TPP-by-TPP causation defense using doctor-by-doctor testimony.
In two of these cases, our client won summary judgment at the trial court level and an appellate court ended up creating a new cause of action to accommodate the plaintiff’s theory (and lack of helpful testimony from the prescribing physician). 2023 WL 2386776, *3. citing Gross v. Pfizer, Inc. ,
But in prescription medical product liability litigation, products must receive FDAapproval, clearance or other authorization (hereafter, collectively referred to as “approval” for short) before they can be marketed. to determine whether a proposed alternative drug would have received FDAapproval.” at 237-38.
Plaintiff argued the testimony was relevant to a risk/utility analysis but showing that a different medical procedure may be safer, “does not affect whether a product has utility and/or risks.” As long as they don’t, the door to this testimony remains closed. . “It is not an alternative design of any product. Pizzitola I , 2022 U.S.
This is the causation variant that we described here as “ not quite physician failure to read ,” since the pertinent testimony was in the nature of a failure to remember reading the relevant information rather than an absolute “never read it” from the implanter. It is undisputed here that the filter received FDAapproval.
The surgeon’s testimony supported two grounds for non-causation: lack of reliance, and that a warning would not have changed how the prescription product was used. at *3 – which means, as we’ve discussed before , a manufacturer cannot include warnings about such off-label uses absent specific FDAapproval.
702 – that they were not qualified, their testimony was not based on sufficient facts or data, their methodologies were not reliable, and they did not reliably apply their methodologies to the facts of the case. their testimony does not present a genuine issue of medical fact.” Motion to Exclude Experts. emphasis in original).
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