Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
FDA Warns Maker of Heart Defibrillators
In January, St. Jude Medical received a warning letter from the FDA that cited manufacturing and quality control issues at the company's facility in Sylmar, CA, where it manufactures its Durata and Riata ST Optim high-voltage implantable cardiac leads. The company has not been told to recall any of its products or to stop manufacturing the Durata and Riata ST Optim products at the Sylmar plant, but until the discrepancies are remedied to the FDA's satisfaction, St. Jude cannot manufacture any new product lines at the facility.
'
New York City Public Hospitals: Some Painkillers Banned
The City of New York has instituted new restrictions on the prescription of certain painkillers in City public hospital emergency rooms. The policy change, announced in January by Mayor Michael Bloomberg, was instituted in light of the findings of the Mayor's Task Force on Prescription Painkiller Abuse, whose initial report noted that City emergency room visits involving opioid painkillers nearly tripled between 2004 and 2010. Henceforth, City emergency departments will not be permitted to prescribe long-acting opioid painkillers like extended-release oxycodone, fentanyl patches or methadone. Even permitted opioid painkillers may only be prescribed (in most cases) in three-day doses; lost or stolen prescriptions will not be refilled. “These new guidelines effectively balance our mission to relieve patients' pain against concerns about drug abuse, dependency and the illicit diversion of opioid medications,” said Dr. Ross Wilson, Senior Vice President and Chief Medical Officer for the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation in a release. “Under these guidelines, we can still treat acute pain of individual patients responsibly while limiting the risks that arise from significant quantities of unused narcotics sitting in someone's medicine cabinet.”
'
Ninth Circuit Says Device Failure-to-Warn Claim Not Preempted
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has declared that state-law claims against medical device manufacturers are not preempted by federal medical device law so long as the duty of care imposed by the state runs “parallel” to a duty established through federal law. The ruling in Stengel v. Medtronic, which puts the Ninth Circuit in the non-preemption camp with the Fifth and Seventh Circuits, reinstates a state-law claim against Medtronic over an implanted pump and catheter device it provided to plaintiff Richard Stengel. The device was meant to deliver pain relief directly to Stengel's spine, but he claims it also caused his permanent paralysis. Stengel's Arizona lawsuit asserts that Medtronic learned of problems with the pump subsequent to the device's approval by the FDA in 1999, yet failed to inform the FDA, medical providers or the public. Medtronic prevailed in a 2012 Ninth Circuit panel decision in which the court ruled that the federal Medical Device Amendments to the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) preempt any state law claim. But after this en banc rehearing, the justices unanimously sided with the plaintiff, concluding that even though the remedies available under Arizona law are more extensive than those provided by federal law, Arizona's laws protecting its citizens' health and safety impose the same duty of reasonable care that the amendments to the FDCA impose. Therefore, this state law claim is not pre-empted.
However, according to the concurring opinion authored by Judge Paul Watford, the plaintiffs have a “causation hurdle” ahead of them if they want to prove the case on the merits. “To prevail, they will ultimately have to prove that if Medtronic had properly reported the adverse events to the FDA as required under federal law, that information would have reached Mr. Stengel's doctors in time to prevent his injuries,” wrote Watford.
'
'
FDA Warns Maker of Heart Defibrillators
In January,
'
The City of
'
Ninth Circuit Says Device Failure-to-Warn Claim Not Preempted
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has declared that state-law claims against medical device manufacturers are not preempted by federal medical device law so long as the duty of care imposed by the state runs “parallel” to a duty established through federal law. The ruling in Stengel v. Medtronic, which puts the Ninth Circuit in the non-preemption camp with the Fifth and Seventh Circuits, reinstates a state-law claim against Medtronic over an implanted pump and catheter device it provided to plaintiff Richard Stengel. The device was meant to deliver pain relief directly to Stengel's spine, but he claims it also caused his permanent paralysis. Stengel's Arizona lawsuit asserts that Medtronic learned of problems with the pump subsequent to the device's approval by the FDA in 1999, yet failed to inform the FDA, medical providers or the public. Medtronic prevailed in a 2012 Ninth Circuit panel decision in which the court ruled that the federal Medical Device Amendments to the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) preempt any state law claim. But after this en banc rehearing, the justices unanimously sided with the plaintiff, concluding that even though the remedies available under Arizona law are more extensive than those provided by federal law, Arizona's laws protecting its citizens' health and safety impose the same duty of reasonable care that the amendments to the FDCA impose. Therefore, this state law claim is not pre-empted.
However, according to the concurring opinion authored by Judge Paul Watford, the plaintiffs have a “causation hurdle” ahead of them if they want to prove the case on the merits. “To prevail, they will ultimately have to prove that if Medtronic had properly reported the adverse events to the FDA as required under federal law, that information would have reached Mr. Stengel's doctors in time to prevent his injuries,” wrote Watford.
'
'
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
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
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 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.
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.
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?
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.