Thus, the application of the First Amendment to FDA administrative actions was not analogous to
preemption in product liability litigation:
Not exact matches
The Drug and Medical Device
Product Liability Deskbook includes: detailed coverage of: warning - related claims and defenses; other information - based theories; strict liability; FDA - related per se liability; preemption of common law tort claims by the Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act and FDA regulations; class actions in drug and medical device litigation; theories of liability asserted against entities other than manufacturers; practical issues involving litigation management; the use of expert witnesses; and many other importan
Liability Deskbook includes: detailed coverage of: warning - related claims and defenses; other information - based theories; strict
liability; FDA - related per se liability; preemption of common law tort claims by the Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act and FDA regulations; class actions in drug and medical device litigation; theories of liability asserted against entities other than manufacturers; practical issues involving litigation management; the use of expert witnesses; and many other importan
liability; FDA - related per se
liability; preemption of common law tort claims by the Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act and FDA regulations; class actions in drug and medical device litigation; theories of liability asserted against entities other than manufacturers; practical issues involving litigation management; the use of expert witnesses; and many other importan
liability;
preemption of common law tort claims by the Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act and FDA regulations; class actions
in drug and medical device
litigation; theories of
liability asserted against entities other than manufacturers; practical issues involving litigation management; the use of expert witnesses; and many other importan
liability asserted against entities other than manufacturers; practical issues involving
litigation management; the use of expert witnesses; and many other important topics.
March 15, 2018); Kaiser v. CSL Plasma Inc., 240 F. Supp.3 d 1129, 1135 (W.D. Wash. 2017)(implied
preemption case);
In re Bard IVC Filters
Products Liability Litigation, 2017 WL 5625547, at * 4 (D. Ariz..
(1) extending negligent misrepresentation beyond «business transactions» to
product liability, unprecedented
in Texas; (2) ignoring multiple US Supreme Court decisions that express and implied
preemption operate independently (as discussed here) to dismiss implied
preemption with nothing more than a cite to the Medtronic v. Lohr express
preemption decision; (3) inventing some sort of state - law tort to second - guess the defendant following one FDA marketing approach (§ 510k clearance) over another (pre-market approval), unprecedented anywhere; (4) holding that the learned intermediary rule does not apply whenever a defendant «compensates» or «incentivizes» physicians to use its
products, absent any Texas state or appellate authority; (5) imposing strict
liability on an entity not
in the
product's chain of sale, contrary to Texas statute (§ 82.001 (2)-RRB-; (6) creating a claim for «tortious interference» with the physician - patient relationship, again utterly unprecedented; (7) creating «vicarious» breach of fiduciary duty for engaging doctors to serve as expert witnesses
in mass tort
litigation also involving their patients, ditto; and (8) construing a consulting agreement with a physician as «commercial bribery» to avoid the Texas cap on punitive damages, jaw - droppingly unprecedented.