article thumbnail

Can Children Consent to the COVID Vaccine? The Case of Foster Care and Juvenile Justice

Bill of Health

Hill, A n Analysis of Racial/Ethnic Disproportionality and Disparity at the National, State, and County Levels , Casey-CSSP Alliance for Racial Equity in Child Welfare 1, 1 (2007), [link]. [3] 8] Young people under age 18 in California detention centers need parental consent to receive the vaccine. 3] Bell, supra note 99 at 26. [4]

article thumbnail

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

Drug & Device Law

We’ve been diligently preparing bottom ten annual lists since 2007, even though it’s distasteful, because if we don’t do it nobody else is likely to, and these abominable decisions deserve to be called out for what they are. While we know that a late-breaking holiday horror, such as T.H. The penalty did not hold up, but the duty did.

FDA 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

Unimpressed Learned Intermediaries Defeat Warning Causation

Drug & Device Law

2007) (no causation where prescriber “questioned the relative risks of the adverse effects” versus the plaintiff’s condition and “continued to prescribe the. . . American Home Products Corp. , 477 F.Supp.2d 2d 1025, 1036 (E.D. drugs after he obtained knowledge about the increased risk”); Ames v.

Doctors 59
article thumbnail

Suing the Certifiers – A Dangerous Undertaking

Drug & Device Law

Anyway, this fraudulent “doctor” allegedly “touched them without informed consent” and caused them “emotional distress. Ohio 2007) (“courts have repeatedly held that trade associations, themselves, have no duty to users of products in that trade”); Commerce & Industry Insurance Co. 23 in its current form. 471 (11th Cir.

Doctors 52
article thumbnail

Confident Learned Intermediaries Defeat Warning Causation

Drug & Device Law

2007 WL 2526402, at *3 (D. 5, 2007) (no causation where prescriber “testified that despite [the decedent’s] death and updated warnings from Defendant, he continues to prescribe [the drug] for his patients because he believes [it] is a safe and effective medicine”) (applying California law); Latiolais v. 2007 WL 5861354, at *4 (C.D.

FDA 59