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
Four of the letters addressed failure to comply with drug Current Good Manufacturing Practice regulations, four more stated that the recipients were distributing unapproved drug products, two alleged violations of the Quality System Regulation by medical device manufacturers, and one was addressed to a clinical investigator.
The manufacturer argued that it did not purposefully avail itself of the privilege of conducting business in Rhode Island because it manufactured a global product that it delivered to distributors who were responsible for marketing and selling the clips in the United States. 3d 679 (D.N.J. 2021) (“ TBI ”).
It is a simple fact that product liability plaintiffs almost always prefer state court and product liability defendants almost always prefer federal court. Other realities are that California has some of the most pro-plaintiff, pro-product liability laws around and that federal courts in California are very tough on removal.
As we discussed at length in this post, since the 1940s, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and other courts applying Pennsylvania law have refused to subject prescription medical products to strict liability. Neither Lewis nor Tincher involved prescription medical products, but rather what we describe as “things that go clank.”
From a bottom-line perspective, the most significant result was that evidence of the product’s 510(k) clearance was improperly excluded, requiring vacation of the verdict and a new trial. So do a number of other jurisdictions, including Pennsylvania in prescription medical product cases. labeling regulations. at *14-15. [I]n
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