Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Exclusion of Evidence: The FDA's 510K Process
In a drug or medical device injury case, one of the defense's most potent arguments often is that the product in question underwent U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval, so the balance of its safety and efficacy has already been determined by the federal government to warrant distribution of the product. But when a device is approved for sale to the public through the FDA's 510(k) process, the rigorous safety and efficacy analysis required of new and unique medical devices has not been undertaken. Still, device makers have shown themselves anxious to present evidence of 510(k) approval to juries considering whether their products are safe for patients to use. Is the fact of 510(k) approval a relevant piece of evidence in this regard?
510(k) Approval
Manufacturers of medical devices that are intended for human use must obtain FDA approval before distributing them in the marketplace. They generally do so through compliance with the Medical Device Amendments of 1976 (MDA) to the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetics Act (FD&C Act), which became law on May 28, 1976, and which were enacted in order to “impose[ ] a regime of detailed federal oversight” over medical devices. Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc., 552 U.S. 312 (2008). In accordance with the MDA, medical devices are sorted into three categories — Class I, II, or III. Devices in Class I (such as dental floss) are the least dangerous and invasive types of devices, and receive the least federal scrutiny before they can be sold. Those in Class III are the most important for supporting life or preventing illness, and/or are those that pose the most risk. Therefore, Class III medical devices receive the most government scrutiny prior to approval — any such device entering the market after May 28, 1976, must go through the premarket approval (PMA) process.
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
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 Stranger to the Deed Rule
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.