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
BY LAURA DIANGELO, MPH A new question-and-answer draft guidance document focused on “addressing misinformation” about regulated life sciences products is currently under administrative review at the White House’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA). Fill out the form to read the full article.
The 51 regulations that FDA is currently working on The FDA today unveiled its much-anticipated Spring 2023 Unified Agenda, a document outlining the regulations the agency plans to release in 2023 and beyond. The anticipated date of publication is June 2023, meaning we should see this regulation imminently.
Product Name: Weight Dissolver – Video Presentation. If within the first 60 days of receipt you are not satisfied with Wake Up Lean , you can request a refund by sending an email to the address given inside the product and we will immediately refund your entire purchase price, with no questions asked. Start Now |. Terms of Use |.
The testimony of witnesses and the Senators themselves largely agreed on the designation, but diverged on questions of liability exemptions. They are used in cleaning products, cookware, leather, paint, and wire insulation. The hearing also featured questions from BEN CARDIN (D-Md.), DEBBIE STABENOW (D-Mich.), PETE RICKETTS (D-Neb.),
New FDA guidance on addressing misinformation under White House review A new question-and-answer draft guidance document focused on “addressing misinformation” about regulated life sciences products is currently under administrative review at the White House’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA).
What We Expect the FDA to do in July 2023 In this ongoing feature, AgencyIQ looks at public data to determine what the FDA is likely to do in the month ahead, including key deadlines, meetings, events, planned regulations, comment periods and more.
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO (R-WV) opened the testimony. Carper noted that the issues with how the EPA has implemented TSCA has led to “grievances” from both the chemical industry and environmental advocates, as the flow of chemicals to market and regulation of harmful chemicals has slowed. Opening Sen. TOM CARPER (D-DE) and Sen.
What We Expect the FDA to do in October 2023 In this ongoing feature, AgencyIQ looks at public data to determine what the FDA is likely to do in the month ahead, including key deadlines, meetings, events, planned regulations, comment periods and more. AgencyIQ October 1 Nitrosamine testing due to FDA.
What We Expect the FDA to do in November 2023 In this ongoing feature, AgencyIQ looks at public data to determine what the FDA is likely to do in the month ahead, including key deadlines, meetings, events, planned regulations, comment periods and more.
Cities have cited low detections of PFAS as well as the expectation that payments would be too low to fund remediation efforts to bring the city or municipality into compliance with future state or federal water regulations for PFAS. On November 27, 2023, the La Crosse Common Council (WI) voted unanimously to opt out of the settlement.
Product Name: CarboFix. If within the first 60 days of receipt you are not satisfied with Wake Up Lean , you can request a refund by sending an email to the address given inside the product and we will immediately refund your entire purchase price, with no questions asked. That stops the production of “new fat”….
In this piece, AgencyIQ explains what a government shutdown would mean for FDA’s regulatory processes and for the industry it regulates. AgencyIQ thought this would be a good time to go over what a government shutdown means for the FDA, and therefore what regulated industry needs to know. What are the impacts for regulated industry?
PFAS are found in drinking water, consumer products such as textiles, cookware, and personal care products, and firefighting foam. In the United States, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has developed a PFAS Roadmap and proposed numerous regulations for managing the effects PFAS has on the environment and human health.
The products infiltrate the many folds and crevices of a vast human skinscape. ” The Patent Trail Rather than relying on social media, company websites, and testimonials, I consulted the Patent and Trademark database to reconstruct the story of invention. ” For everyone. ” Lady parts. .” ” Lady parts.
What We Expect the FDA to do in December 2023 In this ongoing feature, AgencyIQ looks at public data to determine what the FDA is likely to do in the month ahead, including key deadlines, meetings, events, planned regulations, comment periods and more. This is what OIRA is currently reviewing.
Product Name: Let's Quit Sugar With Audiobook – Let's Quit Sugar. If within the first 60 days of receipt you are not satisfied with Wake Up Lean , you can request a refund by sending an email to the address given inside the product and we will immediately refund your entire purchase price, with no questions asked.
Product Name: Unblock My Hormones And Start Burning Fat TODAY With HB5. If within the first 60 days of receipt you are not satisfied with Wake Up Lean , you can request a refund by sending an email to the address given inside the product and we will immediately refund your entire purchase price, with no questions asked.
Product Name: Multiple Sclerosis MS Treatment eBook Cure By Dr. Gary M. If within the first 60 days of receipt you are not satisfied with Wake Up Lean , you can request a refund by sending an email to the address given inside the product and we will immediately refund your entire purchase price, with no questions asked. Payment can be.
They were not subject to any direct regulation by the FDA related to mifepristone. Plaintiffs lack Article III standing to challenge FDA’s actions regarding the regulation of mifepristone,” the court wrote. While other parties may still sue the FDA over its regulation of mifepristone, the Court’s decision is important for the FDA.
In January a public hearing began to receive factual evidence and testimony on whether marijuana should be rescheduled. Marijuana down-rescheduled to schedule III would still be regulated for legitimate medical, scientific and industrial use. The hearing is currently on hold pending an appeal by several of the parties.
Through relationship-building and increased engagement, regulators aim to improve their understanding of the ‘lived experience’ of patients with rare diseases and hear their top concerns. For example, Voice of the Patient and Patient-Focused Drug Development meetings are focused on one disease or a group of similar diseases.
On March 27, the FDA finalized a transition guidance document covering products that had been marketed under enforcement discretion policies during the PHE. Those concerns have proven serious enough that in September 2020 the FDA published a final guidance document calling on manufacturers of drug products to take two steps.
5, 2024) serves up some nice defense nuggets applying the Washington Product Liability Act (WPLA) and refusing to let a sham affidavit create a fact issue. Plaintiffs provided testimony from that physician suggesting that he would have changed his prescribing decision if presented with plaintiffs’ proposed warning language. Allied Mut.
22 (both articles for the proposition that there are “‘many intense side effects’ and ‘significant complications requiring medical attention’” resulting” from FDA’s regulation of mifepristone), at *22 n.37 702 in product liability litigation. 19, 2021) (admitting and excluding Studnicki testimony); Whole Woman’s Health Alliance v.
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.”
In 2023 there seemed to be an unusually large number of other decisions that are likely to have a substantial impact on what we or our clients do, but involve either different products, non-product claims, or both. 2023) (remote trial testimony cannot be compelled beyond Rule 45’s 100-mile limit on subpoenas) ( here ); Carson v.
Many lawyers who at least dabble in product liability litigation have heard the term “Bradford Hill criteria.” In a paraphrase of the testimony of a difficult opposing epidemiology expert who passed away recently, “you have to say what you will do and then do what you say.” We offer two examples.
But this year, as bad as the bottom ten opinions we discuss below are, our sense is that they are somewhat overshadowed by even worse non-prescription medical product judicial malarkey. 2023), was the Fifth Circuit’s blatantly politicized attack on the FDA’s regulation of abortion-related drugs. Norfolk Southern Railway Co. ,
The FDA took the position that such a 510(k) clearance would involve a combination drug/device product. The motions relied “on an emerging body of law protecting commercial speech that promotes off-label uses of medical products.” The plan was to pursue a later, second 510(k) clearance for the steroid delivery function.
Opting instead for expert testimony based on a consumer’s perspective is risky and likely problematic. Plaintiff brought a putative class action against the manufacturer of powdered creamer products alleging its nutrition labels inaccurately described the serving size. So discovered the plaintiff in Gwinn v. Laird Superfood, Inc.,
The court exercised its “gatekeeping” function under Rule 702 to assess whether the methodology underlying Plaintiff’s proffered expert testimony was “scientifically valid” and whether it could “be [properly] applied to the facts in issue.” Nor could Plaintiff fill that void by relying on expert testimony from other cases.
We think that they can, and for a state (like Pennsylvania and a number of others) that still follows the “ Frye ” standard looking to the “general acceptance” of expert testimony as the touchstone to admissibility, a Rule 702 state-law equivalent might look something like this: Rule 702. E.g. , Walsh v. BASF Corp. , 3d 446, 461 (Pa.
In prescription medical product liability litigation, especially in MDLs and mass torts, that means defendants are more likely than not to run into plaintiffs who received at least some medical care from the Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”). There are approximately 1.4 at *21-22.
Quite a few states, as well as the Third Restatement of Torts, require plaintiffs alleging design defects to identify a “feasible” alternative design for the product as a prerequisite for asserting a design defect claim. at 237-38. As a result, appellee was prohibited by federal law from employing either of these [alternatives].
30, 2020), decided an action filed by the California attorney general that had essentially converted the allegations that product liability plaintiffs had been making against the defendants’ pelvic mesh into the basis for a statewide civil action under certain California consumer protection statutes. 2020 WL 603964, at *1. and actual injury.
Our rogues’ gallery contained: In In re Zofran (Ondansetron) Products Liability Litigation , 392 F. 2019) (Augustine); In re Mirena IUD Levonorgestrel-Related Products Liability Litigation (No. While cosmetic talc is not a drug or medical device, the FDA also regulates it (the “C” in the FDCA). 3d 179, 181-87 (D. II) , 341 F.
In Wood, the plaintiffs moved to exclude testimony by the defense regulatory expert, while the defense moved to exclude or limit materials science and medical causation experts. The defendant proposed to bring in an FDA expert who would explain to the jury how the vaginal mesh product had been cleared through FDA’s 510(k) process.
The FDA’s regulations for medical device labeling generally require that such labeling include “any relevant hazards, contraindications, side effects, and precautions.” Johnson & Johnson Vision Products, Inc. , 801.109(c). The most notable application of this exception was in Ellis v. Bard, Inc. , 3d 1272 (11th Cir. 3d at 1286.
March 2, 2022), the court held that the expert “cannot take the final step of opining that the product was ‘misbranded’ or ‘adulterated,’ as these are impermissible legal conclusions.” Polypropylene Hernia Mesh Products Liability Litigation , 2021 WL 3286439 (S.D. In Robinson v. Ethicon, Inc. 2022 WL 614919 (S.D. See In re Davol, Inc./C.R.
The issue in Robinson was the admissibility of testimony by the plaintiff’s regulatory expert. When we consider the damage a regulatory expert can do, misinterpreting both company documents and FDA regulations to make the company look like Murder, Inc., How does such testimony meet the relevance requirement of Fed. Evidence 402?
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).
11, 2022), granted a Rule 702 motion excluding plaintiff’s purported FDA expert Peggy Pence, who “began working as an expert witness for plaintiffs in product liability cases in 2008” and “approximately 100% of her work was as a plaintiff’s expert in product liability litigation.” since] every case must be decided on its own merits.
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