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.” 2012 WL 12848432, at *4 (E.D. 8, 2019) (no causation where prescriber “testified that none of the additional risk information. . . Hamilton , 372 S.W.3d

FDA 59

FDA Doctors Malpractice Medical Personnel 59

Drug & Device Law

MAY 30, 2022

The law presumes that licensed doctors know what they are doing. 1978), where a hypertensive patient was injured after being injected with the defendant’s drug – despite warnings that “expressly directed the doctor administering the drug to refrain from giving it to a patient with hypertension.” Best Pharmacal , 577 P.2d Robins Co. ,

Doctors 59

Doctors Licensing Informed Consent Hospitals 59

Drug & Device Law

AUGUST 22, 2022

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. She also tried to sue three new defendants – a doctor, a medical society and the FDA itself. Plaintiffs Legal Committee , 531 U.S. 341 (2001). at 1334.

Informed Consent 59

Informed Consent FDA Doctors 59