This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Last month the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’sdecision to dismiss a False Claims Act (FCA) ( 21 U.S.C 3729) quit tam suit, alleging that Grifols USA, Grifols Biologicals, Grifols, S.A.,
The hospitals argued that the profits helped them offset the considerable costs of providing healthcare to the uninsured and underinsured in low-income and rural communities, something that Congress was well aware of and intended when it passed the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act in 2003.
A Second Circuit decision vacated two lower court rulings which allowed healthcare workers to claim religious exemptions to New York’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The decision also vacated an injunction from the Northern District of New York and a prior Second Circuit ruling on an Eastern District of New York case.
Thus, Defendants argued that FDA already required the warning for pregnancy, rendering the decision to use it during pregnancy to a healthcare professional, and that FDA had considered the risks of in utero exposure and rejected the addition of those risks to the labeling. billion in damages were brought between 1980 and 1986.
The court heard arguments from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Danco (a drug manufacturer that only makes mifepristone) and the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine (AHM). The questions focused on whether the AHM had standing to bring the case to court. Pro-choice pro testers held signs that said “Abortion is our right.
Justice Barrett : 929 words Justice Barretts questioning primarily sought to clarify legal nuances surrounding the conscience protections for healthcare workers, the standing of associations in legal challenges, and the implications of regulations related to abortion and its associated medical procedures. Reynolds Vapor Co.
Some of the most significant areas include: Regulatory Changes The deregulatory agenda in healthcare, finance, and environmental law has introduced significant uncertainty. Furthermore, recent Supreme Courtdecisions curbing the power of regulatory agencies set the stage for an additional litigation surge.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 99,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content