Search for: "CF Medical LLC"
Results 41 - 60
of 71
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
27 Jun 2008, 2:22 pm
April 30, 2008); cf. [read post]
26 May 2015, 7:42 am
We thought we’d take a look at what law exists concerning the intersection of pharmacogenomics, personalized medicine, and prescription medical product liability litigation. [read post]
12 Aug 2008, 5:01 pm
Cf. [read post]
2 Apr 2009, 8:36 am
Cf. [read post]
12 Nov 2021, 9:52 am
Plaintiff retorts that this argument "just does not make sense" because the witnesses are medical professionals—or medical students—who often use the name "Jane Doe" to refer to unidentified female patients. [read post]
7 Feb 2010, 1:29 pm
Cf. id. [read post]
8 Sep 2016, 7:40 am
__________ ToNorges Bank5 April 2016Recommendation to exclude Duke Energy Corp., Duke Energy Carolinas LLC, Duke Energy Progress LLC and Progress Energy Inc. from the Government Pension Fund Global (GPFG) Confidential pursuant to section 13 subsection 1 of the Freedom of Information Act, cf section 3-4 subsection 1 of the Securities Trading Act.Summary The Council on Ethics for the Government Pension Fund Global recommends the exclusion of Duke Energy… [read post]
6 Jul 2016, 9:46 am
Cf. [read post]
10 Sep 2018, 10:17 am
Coalition for Affordable Drugs (ADROCA) LLC v.Acorda Therapeutics, Inc., Nos. [read post]
24 Apr 2008, 4:07 am
Levine: (1) good, FDA approved warnings about the precise risk at issue (mentioning it 4 times, including in bold-face, allcaps print), (2) prior, specific FDA review of the precise risk and precise medical procedure involved, resulting in ratification of the label's language; (3) the case fits within one of the six situations where the FDA has taken a position that there should be preemption; and (4) of no suggestion of any regulatory violation or withholding of information from the… [read post]
9 Nov 2015, 7:09 am
App. 1995) (approving Restatement §500 as standard applicable to punitive damages); cf. [read post]
1 Oct 2019, 6:21 am
’s uninsured medical expenses; (3). maintain a life insurance policy securing his life with a net death benefit of $1,000,000.00 to T.S. as named beneficiary; (4). pay Wife a total of sixty (60) payments of $1,500.00 per month in alimony; (5). pay Wife’s health insurance premium for the same five years duration; and, (6). maintain a life insurance policy on his life with a net benefit of $1,500,000.00 with Wife as named beneficiary. [read post]
29 Nov 2007, 7:45 am
The Solicitor General, on behalf of the FDA, has recently filed amicus briefs in both the Riegel v. [read post]
28 Apr 2011, 3:18 pm
Comment k says unavoidably unsafe products are “especially common” in the context of prescription medical products (actually, it says “drugs” but “medical devices” weren’t recognized as a separate category of products in the early 1960s – the Medical Device Amendments still being more than a decade in the future). [read post]
29 Apr 2022, 5:01 am
[I blogged an early draft of this essay three months ago, but I've revised it extensively since then. [read post]
20 Jan 2021, 8:49 am
¶5 Specifically, Ryan alleged: (1) “Brenda does not communicate with Ryan regarding [the children] and their needs”; (2) Ryan was “not informed” when one of the children “suffered a concussion” or about the associated “activity restrictions”; (3) “Brenda has refused to allow [the children] to attend significant events in Ryan’s and [the children’s] lives”; (4) Ryan and his current spouse have a… [read post]
4 Oct 2019, 2:35 pm
Shrader & Associates, LLP v. [read post]
1 Mar 2013, 2:30 pm
This medical condition is terrible, but it is an example of what used to be called an “idiosyncratic reaction. [read post]
11 Dec 2008, 7:06 pm
Dow Agrosciences LLC, 544 U.S. 431 (2005), Buckman Co. v. [read post]
13 Jul 2021, 5:05 am
Colorado, where it treated as content-neutral a restriction on approaching people within eight feet outside medical facilities, which also stemmed from speech by anti-abortion advocates: [T]he contention that a statute is "viewpoint based" simply because its enactment was motivated by the conduct of the partisans on one side of a debate is without support. [read post]
