Remove 2006 Remove FDA Remove Fraud Remove Hospitals
article thumbnail

CPAP MDL Overinflates Plaintiffs’ Claims

Drug & Device Law

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. 2006), aff’d , 526 F.3d We saw more of the same with the discussion of consumer fraud claims in CPAP II. Plaintiffs Legal Committee , 531 U.S. 341 (2001).

Fraud 52
article thumbnail

Terrible Decision Contravenes the Vaccine Act’s Purpose and Would Gut Its Protections

Drug & Device Law

Nothing in DeCostanzo suggests that the defendant’s vaccine lacked whatever warnings the FDA had approved, and the likelihood that the FDA would give these antivaxxers the time of day on any violation claim is minimal. 2006 WL 2038436, at *8 (N.D.N.Y. Olin Corp. , 3d 148, 154 (2d Cir. 1997) (“a manufacturing defect. . .

FDA 115
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reported , Michigan’s longstanding presumption of non-defectiveness applicable to FDA-approved drugs was recently repealed by the Michigan legislature in S.B. As this provision is newly applicable to FDA-approved products, it has not been tested by the courts on this issue. Crittenton Hospital , 400 N.W.2d

FDA 52