Drug & Device Law

AUGUST 8, 2022

Apparently, a fraudulent foreign-trained “doctor” treated the plaintiffs, none of whom claimed malpractice or any physical injury whatsoever. Anyway, this fraudulent “doctor” allegedly “touched them without informed consent” and caused them “emotional distress. 2012 WL 3265002, at *5 (N.D. 23 in its current form.

Doctors 52

Doctors Fraud Licensing Compliance 52

Drug & Device Law

JUNE 6, 2022

2012), it had to apply the rule. Further, “both doctors testified that they still prescribe [the drug] for patients with conditions similar to plaintiff’s condition.” Since the learned intermediary rule is a creature of (essentially unanimous) state law, we start with state appellate decisions. Hamilton , 372 S.W.3d 3d 140 (Tex.

FDA 59

FDA Doctors Malpractice Medical Personnel 59

Drug & Device Law

AUGUST 22, 2022

The plaintiff in Jacob sued the manufacturer of a Class III, FDA premarket-approved medical device. First, the plaintiff’s non-parallel claims were “preempted to the extent” that they would have imposed “alleged labeling or manufacturing requirements that are different from, or in addition to, those imposed by the FDA.” 341 (2001).

Informed Consent 59

Informed Consent FDA Doctors 59