Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
It is no surprise to anyone that health care spending continues to rise at what is generally considered the fastest rate in U.S. history. As a result, the health care industry is growing exponentially and is under incredible market pressure. Medical device companies and pharmaceutical companies constantly compete to provide newer and better drugs and devices as well as balance issues relating to cost, patient safety and liability. In order to compete in this environment and develop safe and effective products, testing on human volunteers through clinical trials is necessary. Naturally, because they involve human beings, clinical trials have increasingly become the subject of litigation. Due to the rise in our aging population and the market pressures incumbent on medical and pharmaceutical companies, it is anticipated that we will continue to see numerous clinical trials as well as the ensuing litigation based on clinical trials well into the future.
Lawyers have crafted numerous, varied and often creative attempts to file suit on behalf of the subjects or former subjects of clinical trials. This article discusses the various causes of action seen in courtrooms around the United States and whether such causes of action have been successful.
A Brief History of Regulations Protecting Human Research Subjects
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.
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.
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.