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
Share In the midst of a national opioid crisis that claimed more than 100,000 lives in this country over the past year, the Supreme Court will hear a case on Tuesday about the relevance of doctors’ subjective intentions in criminal prosecutions for unlawful distribution of controlled substances. While on the surface, the case, Ruan v.
Supreme Court (six justices) issued a noteworthy opinion on criminal liability related to prescribers of controlled substances. 1) to manufacture, distribute, or dispense, or possess with intent to manufacture, distribute, or dispense, a controlled substance; or. (2) Gilbert & Karla L. United States, No. 20-1410 and Kahn v.
Pfizer manufactures tafamidis, a breakthrough treatment for a rare, progressive heart condition known as transthyretin amyloid cardiomyopathy. That court granted summary judgment to the government on the APA claim and rejected Pfizer’s narrower reading of the AKS, which would require an element of “corrupt” intent to impose AKS liability.
Now, after an unfavorable HHS Office of the Inspector General (OIG) advisory opinion and two defeats in court, Pfizer has appealed the Second Circuit’s decision to the Supreme Court. The Second Circuit’s Interpretation of the AKS and its MensRea Element. Background.
Supreme Court issued numerous landmark decisions in 2020, among those—for trademark scholars and practitioners— Romag Fasteners, Inc. es the threat posed to companies that rely on third-party manufacturers. Summary of the Supreme Court’s Opinions. Fossil, Inc. Practitioners should expect that juries will ? Romag solidi?es
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