Remove 2001 Remove Compliance Remove FDA Remove Fraud
article thumbnail

Guest Post – Michigan Product Liability Law:  Retroactivity of New Law and Primer

Drug & Device Law

As the DDL blog has previously reported , Michigan’s longstanding presumption of non-defectiveness applicable to FDA-approved drugs was recently repealed by the Michigan legislature in S.B. As this provision is newly applicable to FDA-approved products, it has not been tested by the courts on this issue. Lynch & Co. Flex Techs.,

FDA 52
article thumbnail

Thinking About the FDA’s Alternative Summary Reporting Program

Drug & Device Law

He came across several preemption decisions involving defendants who employed the FDA’s “alternative summary reporting” (“ASR”) system that the agency operated for about 20 years, “from 1997 through June 2019.” without adversely affecting FDA’s ability to monitor and react to such events. 18, 2022) ( available here ).

FDA 59
Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

article thumbnail

Logical Contradiction Doctrine:  Buckman for Textualists

Drug & Device Law

341 (2001), with the rejection of the so-called “purposes and objectives” prong of implied preemption by the most conservative justices (at least in terms of federalism) on the Court. Plaintiffs Legal Committee , 531 U.S. Plaintiffs Legal Committee , 531 U.S. Plaintiffs Legal Committee , 531 U.S. Mensing , 564 U.S. Mensing , 564 U.S.

FDA 72
article thumbnail

Applying the Helpful but Problematic New Jersey Statute Creating a Rebuttable Compliance Presumption, the Third Circuit Affirms Dismissal of a Failure-to-Warn Claim

Drug & Device Law

2022), a short decision that came out the right way, but did so based on a problematic statute that creates a rebuttal presumption that warning labels approved by the FDA are adequate as a matter of state law. Stated differently, the rebuttal provision makes allegations and evidence of fraud on the FDA a prerequisite to state-law liability.

article thumbnail

510(k) Devices, Compliance Presumptions, and the Long Shadow of Lohr

Drug & Device Law

In our initial post, we focused on the exception to the presumption, which allows liability to be imposed if a plaintiff alleges and ultimately proves that the defendant manufacturer committed fraud on the FDA. The court held that the presumption applied because it was “undisputed that the [device] is subject to FDA oversight.”