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. Such power rests solely with the FDA.”

Doctors 52

Doctors Fraud Licensing Compliance 52

Drug & Device Law

JUNE 6, 2022

They’re experienced at what they do and aren’t intimidated by plaintiffs’ counsel and their threats of malpractice claims if they don’t testify the way plaintiffs want them to. procedure that existed at the time of [plaintiff’s] injury”; malpractice was “intervening cause”) (applying Kansas law); Eck v. 3d 1223, 1233 (11th Cir.

FDA 59

FDA Doctors Malpractice Medical Personnel 59

Drug & Device Law

JUNE 7, 2022

Plaintiff argued this conflicted with the learned intermediary rule because the FDA requires warnings to consumers when manufacturers market drugs to consumers. The FDA also requires warnings to physicians. Doctors are charged with discussing the risks and benefits of treatment and obtaining informed consent from their patients.

Doctors 69

Doctors FDA Informed Consent Malpractice 69