Why doctors should worry about preemption

New England Journal of Medicine

Volumn 359, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 1-3

  Curfman, Gregory D ^a   Morrissey, Stephen ^a   Drazen, Jeffrey M ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

APROTININ; DEXFENFLURAMINE; ROFECOXIB; ROSIGLITAZONE;

COURT; DRUG INDUSTRY; DRUG SAFETY; FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION; HEALTH CARE POLICY; LAW; LAW ENFORCEMENT; LEGAL LIABILITY; MEDICAL INSTRUMENTATION; PATIENT CARE; PHYSICIAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SHORT SURVEY; UNITED STATES; ARTICLE; DRUG APPROVAL; DRUG LEGISLATION; DRUG TOXICITY; GOVERNMENT; JURISPRUDENCE; LEGAL ASPECT; PATIENT RIGHT; SAFETY;

DEVICE APPROVAL; DRUG APPROVAL; DRUG INDUSTRY; DRUG TOXICITY; LEGISLATION, DRUG; LIABILITY, LEGAL; PATIENT RIGHTS; STATE GOVERNMENT; SUPREME COURT DECISIONS; UNITED STATES; UNITED STATES FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION;

EID: 46449123898     PISSN: 00284793     EISSN: 15334406     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1056/NEJMp0804448     Document Type: Article

References (5)

1. Wyeth v. Levine, cert. granted, 128 S. Ct. 1118 (2008).
2. Riegel v. Medtronic, 128 S. Ct. 999 (2008).
3. Porter MJ. The Lohr decision: FDA perspective and position. Food Drug Law J 1997; 52:7-11.
4. Kessler DA, Vladeck DC. A critical examination of the FDA's efforts to preempt failure-to-warn claims. Georgetown Law J 2008; 96(2). (Accessed June 13, 2008, at http://lsr.nellco.org/georgetown/ois/papers/2/.)
5. Baciu A, Stratton K, Burke SP, eds. The future of drug safety: promoting and protecting the health of the public. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2007.