article thumbnail

Health Provider News

Hall Render

How did we get here? Nonprofit hospitals under growing scrutiny over how they justify billions in tax breaks States increase pressure on nonprofit hospitals as charity care scrutinized Senate proposal would give hospitals $385M for emergency preparedness. to 18 central Mass. nonprofits MICHIGAN Ascension St. Not everyone is happy.

article thumbnail

CPAP MDL Overinflates Plaintiffs’ Claims

Drug & Device Law

2001). “[A] federal court in a diversity case should be reluctant to expand state common law.” 341 (2001). CPAP II shrugs off plaintiffs’ repeated allegations that defendants “failed to apprise the FDA” of this or that, with the excuse that plaintiffs don’t really “rely” on them. 2001), aff’d , 358 F.3d Beretta, U.S.A.

Fraud 52
Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

article thumbnail

Another RICOdiculous Decision

Drug & Device Law

Nonetheless, the Ninth Circuit’s PATDC82 I allowed a RICO claim alleging that, between 1999 and 2011, defendants concealed that risk from the FDA and that, as a result, every TPP in the country paid for Actos prescriptions that it otherwise would not have reimbursed. 341 (2001). But the FDA has concluded just the opposite.

Fraud 52
article thumbnail

Stupid Expert Tricks Redux

Drug & Device Law

2001) (Kilburn); and Wade-Greaux v. While cosmetic talc is not a drug or medical device, the FDA also regulates it (the “C” in the FDCA). I-Flow Corp. , 2d 1092, 1119-25 (D. 2010) (Matsen); Nelson v. Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co. 1998 WL 1297690, at *4, 7-8 (W.D. 31, 1998), aff’d , 243 F.3d 3d 244 (6th Cir. Whitehall Laboratories, Inc. ,

article thumbnail

Dismissal of Experts-Turned-Plaintiffs’ FCA Case as Sanction Affirmed

Drug & Device Law

As discussed here , the primary allegations asserted the same sort of “fraud on the FDA” claim that, when brought as a common-law tort claim, were held preempted in Buckman Co. As the earlier post discussed, the First Circuit rightly put an end to that attack on FDA authority in United States ex rel. No other causation needed.

FDA 59
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reported , Michigan’s longstanding presumption of non-defectiveness applicable to FDA-approved drugs was recently repealed by the Michigan legislature in S.B. As this provision is newly applicable to FDA-approved products, it has not been tested by the courts on this issue.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

Buckman Preempts Claims Despite State’s Adoption of the FDCA as State Law

Drug & Device Law

341 (2001), stands for the proposition that only the federal government may enforce the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and that any state-law claim that depends on the existence of the FDCA is impliedly preempted by 21 U.S.C. § Plaintiffs’ Legal Committee , 531 U.S. Plaintiffs constantly try to evade Buckman. Medtronic, Inc. , 3d 1026, 1034 n.22

FDA 72