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
Title Type Date Cleared by OIRA Legal Deadline None Notable FDA Comment Periods Closing in November and December FDA comment periods are typically open for 30-60 days, unless they are extended. Within 180 days, FDA will release a report on the proceedings of the public meeting and any recommendations.
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
And even if not, the doctor must participate in the medical treatment that facilitates an abortion. The Doctors allege that being made to provide this treatment conflicts with their sincerely held moral beliefs and violates their rights of conscience. The Supreme Court today provided a unanimous rebuke to this theory of standing.
12/29/2023 FDORA, Section 3202 Orphan Drug Program : FDA will convene a public meeting (or several) to solicit input from stakeholders regarding rare disease patient burdens, treatment options, side effects of treatments, etc. The final rule will amend the administrative destruction provisions in 21 CFR 1.94 to include devices.
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.
The drug is still on the market, and it has other risks that the FDA has found significantly more serious – requiring a boxed warning – than a three-one hundredths-of one-percent (0.0003) increase in absolute incidence of bladder cancer. But the FDA has concluded just the opposite. PATDC82 I , 943 F.3d 3d at 1251.
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.
Starting with the to-be-published Mixson I , this IVC filter case presented rather complex choice of law issues because the plaintiff implantee was in the military when the surgery in question occurred, and the army sent him to Texas for treatment, even though he was a Florida resident. Testimony that the fall was a potential cause ?
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