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
Date What’s Happening Explanation Source October 31 FDA deadline on Florida drug importation plan The FDA has said in court filings that it plans to make a ruling on Florida’s prescription drug importation plan by October 31. The following PDUFA dates were obtained from publicly available sources. to include devices.
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.
12/29/2023 FDORA, Section 3210 Accelerated Approval : FDA’s Accelerated Approval Council must publish a report within one year of the passage of the FDORA legislation regarding its annual activities. ” The report will also cover Federal agency roles in addressing vulnerabilities and statutory limitations.
Another of our posts quoted similar concerns raised by our clients in the pharmaceutical industry as the matter was being successfully appealed to the United States Supreme Court: The Fifth Circuit’s ruling threatens to stifle pharmaceutical innovation by disrupting industry’s reasonable investment-backed expectations.
2023) (remote trial testimony cannot be compelled beyond Rule 45’s 100-mile limit on subpoenas) ( here ); Carson v. 2023) (HHS cannot force pharmaceutical manufacturers to sell unlimited amounts of prescription drugs at a discount) ( here ). They excluded bogus expert testimony under Fed. Bonta , 85 F.4th 4th 1263 (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.
We’ve discussed recently how a federal statute intended to allow suits against international terrorists has been misapplied as allowing suits against pharmaceutical companies. Takeda Pharmaceuticals Co. , Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. , 3d 1243 (9th Cir. Now, Painters & Allied Trades District Council 82 Health Care Fund v.
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. Such a lawyer might have told her not to sue at all.
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.
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. 2d 739, 747 (E.D.
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