Search for: "PMA COMPANIES, INC."
Results 21 - 40
of 74
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
27 Jan 2014, 11:40 am
Cal. 2011)(taking judicial notice of PMA approval documents). [read post]
30 Dec 2013, 5:25 am
PLIVA, Inc., 713 F.3d 774 (5th Cir. 2013). [read post]
11 Dec 2013, 12:27 pm
Moreover, PMA claims that it commissioned Burch and Graywood, Burch's company, to draft and prepare as a "work for hire" certain training modules that would be for PMA's exclusive use. [read post]
26 Nov 2013, 11:56 am
Medtronic, Inc., 2013 U.S. [read post]
31 Oct 2013, 5:00 am
Medtronic, Inc., 552 U.S. 312 (2008); finding PMA preemption under Medtronic, Inc. v. [read post]
14 Oct 2013, 9:07 am
Co., 138 N.J. 437 (1994) and Carter-Wallace, Inc. v. [read post]
5 Jul 2013, 5:00 am
A.D. 2011).The issue of whether a company complied or did not comply with FDA requirements is relevant to many aspects of the products liability lawsuit. [read post]
29 May 2013, 8:06 pm
Some companies may do more, but such activities are irrelevant under the statute: only the four criteria matter. [read post]
27 Mar 2013, 4:30 am
Jude company representative. [read post]
26 Feb 2013, 11:37 am
Medtronic, Inc., 552 U.S. 312 (2008) (state law claims that impose requirements “different from or in addition to” FDA’s PMA requirements are preempted). [read post]
22 Jan 2013, 4:17 pm
I-Flow, LLC, Washington DC Injury Lawyer Blog, October 22, 2012 Photo credit: By SynCardia Systems, Inc. [read post]
16 Jul 2012, 10:17 am
Medtronic, Inc., No. [read post]
29 Dec 2011, 6:53 am
Not only that, but W-G is also good on PMA device preemption. [read post]
27 Dec 2011, 9:56 am
Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 951 N.E.2d 1238 (Ill. [read post]
22 Dec 2011, 11:59 am
Because the product was a PMA device and all the usual claims were preempted. [read post]
7 Dec 2011, 2:00 am
Texas Mutual Insurance Company The Travelers Companies, Inc. [read post]
1 Dec 2011, 5:00 am
Texas Mutual Insurance Company The Travelers Companies, Inc. [read post]
16 Nov 2011, 5:43 pm
Pliva, Inc. v. [read post]
16 Nov 2011, 5:31 am
BSN Medical, Inc. v. [read post]
3 Aug 2011, 12:00 pm
And Lohr is founded in large part upon its evaluation of the §510k process as largely unrelated to device safety: The company's defense exaggerates the importance of the §510(k) process and the FDA letter to the company regarding the [product’s] substantial equivalence to a grandfathered device. [read post]
