This is a guest post by J. Carter Thompson, of Baker Donelson, and it’s for a good cause:

*************

DRI’s Drug and Medical Device Committee will hold its 26th annual Seminar on May 20-21, 2010, at the San Francisco Marriott, in San Francisco, California. The Seminar is the preeminent program for practitioners who represent pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers. The Seminar will feature a number of nationally (more…)

Good tidings and great cheer. Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, Kool Kwanzaa, Super Solstice – whatever holiday you’re celebrating. What is there to celebrate? Well, for the moment we can all celebrate our top ten favorite drug and medical device decisions of 2009. While we don’t have a Supreme Court star at the top or our tree this year (Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (2009), isn’t drug/device), there are still (more…)

It’s that time of year. Yeah, we know, it’s neither new nor original to do top ten lists – but it’s still fun. Except when it isn’t.

How much fun can it be to review all those times in the past year when we’ve been kicked in the teeth? That’s right. Here are our top (or should we say bottom) ten worst prescription drug/medical device decisions of 2009.

True, there are still a (more…)

Last week we came through for our readers with a $200 discount to ACI’s Drug/Medical Device Conference.

This week, we’ve gotten Law Journal Press, the publisher of Bexis’ book – officially Beck & Vale, “Drug & Medical Device Product Liability Deskbook,” (LJP 2004) – to offer it to blog readers at a 40% discount. That’s a more than a $100 savings from its ordinary price of $259.

If you like heavily-cited posts like the Limits (more…)

The American Conference Institute is again sponsoring its annual Drug and Medical Device Conference in New York City in December.

This year’s conference will be held from December 8 to 10 at the Millennium Broadway Hotel.

Here’s a link to the conference website, which in turn links to the conference brochure.

ACI is offering readers of this blog a $200 discount off the conference price. Mention the “Drug and Device (more…)

If you are interested in advertising here, please use the links below for more information.
Advertising spots are located in either the right hand column or at the bottom of the site. Also, if there is something of public interest you feel I should include, please let me know as well. I try to bring articles of both current interest and perhaps items you may not find easily relative to healthcare on the web, to keep it interesting.
Recently (more…)

It appears tracking of narcotic prescription drugs is on the rise by police officials.  These were 3 different cases in 3 different locations this week.  The 4th article here involves a VA physician who didn’t keep adequate and/or fake records to get patients enrolled  in drug studies, of which we have been hearing quite a bit of in the news today about the accuracy and how they were conducted, as well completely duped records that were made (more…)

It was inevitable, we guess. Just as we ended up creating a new express preemption scorecard for medical devices after
, we’ve decided to do the same with the drug/vaccine preemption after
Wyeth v. Levine
(yes, we know
doesn’t address vaccines, but since we have to change one, we’ll change them both).
It’s basically the same as our other scorecards. It will be in chronological order after
, and we’ll mention the drug, the basic result, (more…)

If you are interested in advertising here, please use the links below for more information.
Advertising spots are located in either the right hand column or at the bottom of the site. Also, if there is something of public interest you feel I should include, please let me know as well. I try to bring articles of both current interest and perhaps items you may not find easily relative to healthcare on the web, to keep it interesting.
Recently (more…)

Wyeth v. Levine
, 2009 WL 529172 (U.S. March 4, 2009), was the Court’s discussion of the “changes being effected” regulation,
id.
at *7-8, which in turn depended on the existence of either “newly acquired information” or “new analyses of previously submitted data.”
Id.
at *7. Factually, there wasn’t much of a record, so the Court held, essentially, that the defendant hadn’t proven the (more…)