Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Drug Misbranding Redefined
The cornerstone of many U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) enforcement actions against pharmaceuticals manufacturers in recent years has been the charge that they and their represetatives have “misbranded” their pharmaceutical products by promoting them for uses not approved by the FDA. The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), 21 U.S.C. ' 331(a), prohibits misbranding of a drug product, yet does not define promotion of off-label drug prescription or use as such “misbranding.” It is federal enforcement agents who came up with the argument that off-label promotion of a pharmaceutical product equaled “misbranding,” and that argument has been very successful.
Although doctors have always been permitted to prescribe medications for uses not officially endorsed by the FDA, manufacturers and their salespeople who actively encouraged such conduct could find themselves the subjects of federal civil and criminal actions. And the consequences are not insignificant. Huge fines have been imposed and settlements obtained, including the October 2012 fine assessed against Abbott Laboratories for marketing Depakote as a treatment for schizophrenics and dementia patients, even though those uses are not FDA-approved. Abbot was ordered to pay what the Department of Justice (DOJ) described as the “second-largest criminal fine for a single drug.” That fine was $500 million, plus a forfeiture of nearly $200 million; this in addition to payment to the Virginia Medicaid Fraud Control Unit of $1.5 million, and an $800 million settlement with federal and state governments for causing false claims to be filed with those entities.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Why So Many Great Lawyers Stink at Business Development and What Law Firms Are Doing About It
Why is it that those who are best skilled at advocating for others are ill-equipped at advocating for their own skills and what to do about it?
Bankruptcy Sales: Finding a Diamond In the Rough
There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.
The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year Later
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
A Lawyer's System for Active Reading
Active reading comprises many daily tasks lawyers engage in, including highlighting, annotating, note taking, comparing and searching texts. It demands more than flipping or turning pages.
Protecting Innovation in the Cyber World from Patent Trolls
With trillions of dollars to keep watch over, the last thing we need is the distraction of costly litigation brought on by patent assertion entities (PAEs or "patent trolls"), companies that don't make any products but instead seek royalties by asserting their patents against those who do make products.