Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Congress vs 'Defensive Medicine'
Due to the rising cost of 'defensive medicine,' the U.S. House of Representatives recently passed legislation to limit or ban punitive damages in product liability lawsuits over injuries allegedly caused by FDA-approved products. 2003 H.R. 5. The HEALTH 'Help Efficient, Accessible, Low-Cost Timely Healthcare' Act of 2003 was introduced in the House on February 5. This bill passed in the House on March 13 and is currently on the calendar of the Senate.
Sec. 7(c)(1)(A) of the bill addresses punitive damages for FDA-approved products (drug, device, or biological product intended for humans). 'Punitive damages may not be awarded against the manufacturer or distributor of a medical product ' on the basis that the harm to the claimant was caused by the lack of safety or effectiveness of the particular medical product involved, unless the claimant demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that: 1) the manufacturer or distributor ' failed to comply with a specific requirement of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act or regulations promulgated thereunder; and 2) the harm attributed to the particular medical product resulted from such failure to comply with such specific statutory requirement or regulation.
Some state legislatures have already enacted legislation that in effect provides an 'FDA Defense' to the manufacturer and seller. In Michigan, MCL 600.2946(5) limits the liability of a drug manufacturer or seller in a product liability case if the drug had been approved for safety and efficacy by the FDA and labeled in compliance with FDA standards at the time the drug left the manufacturer or seller's control. This law makes exceptions in the event that fraud or bribery on the part of the manufacturer was involved.
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?