Search for: "In Re Medical Review Panel"
Results 581 - 600
of 900
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
5 May 2013, 7:25 pm
Finally, the standard deviation on the 2012 peer review was extremely high and the re-review by the three member committee resulted in a split decision. [read post]
17 Apr 2013, 1:15 pm
” What followed was a meeting with the manufacturer, a re-review of the third application by a new team, a second Advisory Panel Meeting, a recommendation from the review team that the device was “not substantially equivalent to legally marketed predicates,” and notification to the manufacturer that prior clearance would be rescinded and the product re-classified to Class III (PMA). [read post]
7 Apr 2013, 12:12 pm
A review of the five matters in which charges were sustained follows. [read post]
3 Apr 2013, 1:13 pm
On the other hand, Médecins Sans Frontières noted that '[t]he Supreme Court's decision now makes patents on the medicines that we desperately need less likely. [read post]
26 Mar 2013, 5:17 pm
After reviewing the precedent from other circuits, the K-Dur panel rejected the scope of the patent test because reverse payments “permit the sharing of monopoly rents between would-be competitors without any assurance that the underlying patent is valid. [read post]
9 Mar 2013, 7:33 pm
Western States Medical Center, 535 U.S. 357, 360-61 (2002). [read post]
4 Mar 2013, 11:38 am
On February 6 of this year, a unanimous three-judge panel of the California Court of Appeals in Los Angeles upheld that decision. [read post]
21 Feb 2013, 9:25 am
Panel 2: Creativity and Incentives to Create Keith Sawyer: Token nonlawyer. [read post]
19 Feb 2013, 6:45 am
It will also increase FDA’s access to external expertise to improve the drug review process. [read post]
12 Feb 2013, 12:22 pm
More Blog Posts: Pharmaceutical Company Allegedly Knew of Harmful Fosamax Side Effects as Far Back as 2004, According to Review of Internal Documents: In Re: Fosamax Products Liability Litigation, Pharmacy Error Injury Lawyer Blog, December 5, 2012 Punitive Damages in Maryland Medication Error Litigation: Marsh v. [read post]
1 Feb 2013, 9:31 am
The group argued that it was time for both officials and the court to re-examine the evidence - which overwhelmingly falls in favor of the medicine. [read post]
16 Jan 2013, 4:02 am
Alaris Medical System (Fed. [read post]
10 Jan 2013, 1:21 pm
Health insurers, employers and other sponsors of self-insured health plans and others responsible for their funding and administration need to review these regulations and make other arrangements to budget for and timely report and pay this required fee. [read post]
23 Dec 2012, 3:26 pm
In my view, the appellants are asking this court to re-examine all the evidence and to come to different conclusions than those reached by the trial judge – i.e., to retry the case. [read post]
22 Dec 2012, 11:24 am
Then, on reargument, an en banc panel of the Pennsylvania Superior Court reversed and held that these communications were not discoverable. [read post]
26 Nov 2012, 7:53 pm
Stengel, which involved both Riegel express preemption and Buckman implied preemption of state law claims regarding medical devices, was re-heard by the full Ninth Circuit on September 19, 2012. [read post]
26 Nov 2012, 6:49 am
" These include new rate review rules (say that 3 times fast!) [read post]
21 Nov 2012, 12:48 pm
Bias refers to the existence of factors in the design of a study or in the manner in which the study was carried out which might distort the result.43 If a statistically significant association is found and there is no apparent ‘bias’, an inference is created that there may be a cause-and-effect relationship between the agent and the medical effect. [read post]
13 Nov 2012, 11:54 am
The Panel is not required o follow the rules of evidence. [read post]
2 Nov 2012, 11:49 am
Ex. 2 is 10/27/06 QMS Transaction # 68137 Summary Report re the write-off for the patient fall. [read post]
