article thumbnail

SQA Regulatory Surveillance Summary | Monthly Update 2022 – Spring

SQA

Requirements for classification and related issues established under RDC 185/2001, as well as other relevant medical device regulations, will apply for SaMD, as well. SaMD products registered with ANVISA will be subject to audis, market monitoring, surveillance, and inspections by the regulator.

FDA 75
article thumbnail

SQA Regulatory Surveillance Summary 3 | Monthly Update 2021

SQA

In addition, considering the fact that one marketing authorization application is submitted in accordance with Article 8(3) of Directive 2001/83/EC and the other marketing authorization application is submitted under an abridged procedure (e.g.,

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

article thumbnail

Confident Learned Intermediaries Defeat Warning Causation

Drug & Device Law

Because we encountered many stand up learned intermediary surgeons in the Bone Screw litigation, several of the relatively early decisions from the 1999-2001 timeframe are Bone Screw cases. 2001) (no causation where medical personnel “had no alternative other than to use the. . . Smith & Nephew Richards, Inc. , 2d 35, 41 (D.D.C.

FDA 59
article thumbnail

Unimpressed Learned Intermediaries Defeat Warning Causation

Drug & Device Law

2001) (no warning causation notwithstanding heeding presumption where prescriber testified that “the risk of him having a problem due to his [condition] was much greater than him taking the [drug]”) (applying Oklahoma law); Porterfield v. 2001), aff’d , 358 F.3d Stryker Co. , 3d 568, 576-77 (6th Cir. Parke, Davis & Co. ,

Doctors 59
article thumbnail

Stupid Expert Tricks Redux

Drug & Device Law

2001) (Kilburn); and Wade-Greaux v. 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. , 1441, 1559-62 (D.V.I. 1994), aff’d mem. , 3d 1120 (3d Cir. 1994) (Gilbert).

article thumbnail

Lovely Warnings Causation (and More) Mesh Decision from the Central District of California

Drug & Device Law

And the court agreed, finding that “the undisputed facts reflected that [the doctor] testified she read the IFU, relied on the warnings provided by [the defendant], believed she had a comprehensive informed consent process, and would have passed on a warning about the risk of severe and chronic pain to patients. 2001), aff’d sub nom.

Doctors 64
article thumbnail

Who Needs a Lawyer in the Eleventh Circuit?

Drug & Device Law

This time, plaintiff pleaded “1) violation of [defendant’s] premarket approval; 2) breach of implied warranty; and 3) lack of informed consent (failure to warn).” Id. 341 (2001). Mentor Worldwide, LLC , 2019 WL 6766574 (M.D. She also tried to sue three new defendants – a doctor, a medical society and the FDA itself.