article thumbnail

Malarkey ? The Ten Worst Prescription Drug/Medical Device Decisions of 2023

Drug & Device Law

FDA , 78 F.4th 2023), was the Fifth Circuit’s blatantly politicized attack on the FDA’s regulation of abortion-related drugs. The questionable allegations of that single complaint thus effectively trumped many years of the FDA’s science-based decision-making. The FDA, for one, advised patients to keep using these drugs.

FDA 52
article thumbnail

An Abuse of Discretion So Vast….  Our Long-Delayed Critique of the Valsartan MDL Class Action Certifications

Drug & Device Law

Indeed, the FDA stated, in connection with the same drug recalls that the Valsartan plaintiffs use to define their classes, 2023 WL 1818922, at *20-21: [These] medicines. . . FDA, “ Statement on the agency’s ongoing efforts to resolve safety issue with ARB medications ” (Aug. 18, 2019) (emphasis added). 2023 WL 1818922, at *36.

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

Suing the Certifiers – A Dangerous Undertaking

Drug & Device Law

The unfortunate truth is that ECFMG was also a victim of this fake doctor’s fraud. Ohio 2007) (“courts have repeatedly held that trade associations, themselves, have no duty to users of products in that trade”); Commerce & Industry Insurance Co. Such power rests solely with the FDA.” 471 (11th Cir. 2d 775, 799 & n.114

Doctors 52
article thumbnail

TwIqbal And Punitive Damages

Drug & Device Law

544 (2007), and Ashcroft v. Here, Plaintiffs fail to supply factual support showing Defendant acted with “oppression, fraud, or malice,” relying instead upon conclusory allegations. These allegations lack any contention or inference that [defendant] withheld or misrepresented information to the FDA. . ., Twombly , 550 U.S.

Fraud 59
article thumbnail

Twombly and Iqbal Taken Seriously: Express-Preemption Dismissal

Drug & Device Law

544 (2007), and Ashcroft v. The plaintiff asserted all the usual claims and then one: manufacturing defect; failure to warn; breach of warranty; and fraud. Plaintiffs alleged that manufactured had failed to investigate and report the event to the FDA as purportedly required. Twombly , 550 U.S. Iqbal , 556 U.S. Medtronic Inc.

FDA 59
article thumbnail

Comment K, Presumptions, and Medical Device Design Defects Under Texas Law

Drug & Device Law

2007 WL 4042757, at *3 (N.D. 15, 2007); McNeil v. Texas, unlike most states, enforces a strong statutory presumption that prescription medical product warnings complying with FDA requirements imposed by “pre-market approval or licensing of the product” are adequate as a matter of law. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. , & Rem.

FDA 59
article thumbnail

Lack Of Proximate Cause Evidence Dooms Misrepresentation And Warnings Claims

Drug & Device Law

9(b), “[i]n alleging fraud or mistake, a party must state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake.” In particular, MDLs seem to have an unfortunate habit of allowing general allegations to support fraudulent misrepresentation claims and other claims based on alleged fraud or mistake. Under Fed.

Fraud 59