| Author |
Legal Landscape Heats Up For Life Science Companies
|
|
| gospa68@aol.com 2005-04-11, 6:14 pm |
| Legal Landscape Heats Up for Life Science CompaniesJill WadlundA B S T
R A C TDrawing on their success with asbestos and tobacco litigation,
trial lawyers are aggressively targeting pharmaceutical and medical
device companies with class action lawsuits that seek billions of
dollars for thousands of plaintiffs. While the largest and wealthiest
companies standfirst in the line of fire, smaller companies are
vulnerable, too. This article discusses how biotechnology and life
science companies can reduce therisk of product liability litigation
and the prudent risk management steps that can be taken to improve
their defense posture and reduce theirexposure to large jury verdicts.
Entire article can be found at
http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cach...&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
| |
| serebel 2005-04-11, 6:14 pm |
|
gospa68@aol.com wrote:
> Legal Landscape Heats Up for Life Science CompaniesJill WadlundA B S
T
> R A C TDrawing on their success with asbestos and tobacco litigation,
> trial lawyers are aggressively targeting pharmaceutical and medical
> device companies with class action lawsuits that seek billions of
> dollars for thousands of plaintiffs. While the largest and wealthiest
> companies standfirst in the line of fire, smaller companies are
> vulnerable, too. This article discusses how biotechnology and life
> science companies can reduce therisk of product liability litigation
> and the prudent risk management steps that can be taken to improve
> their defense posture and reduce theirexposure to large jury
verdicts.
This is typical of ambulance chaser law firms. They're not seeking
anything on behalf of "plaintiffs", ther're seeking money on behalf of
themselves.
SErebel
| |
| CatmanX 2005-04-11, 6:14 pm |
| How many doctors have been successfully sued for RS???? Very few. THey
also have good lawyers working for them, both ensuring that appropriate
pre-surgical information is given and taking the big guns to patients
who want to sue. To date, not one suit has been successful down here,
so law firms who want to take on this branch of the medical profession
had better get some better ammunition than they have tried to date.
| |
| An Incredible 2005-04-11, 6:14 pm |
| This is an interesting article. In it, the FDA concluded that there are
several common problems that appear in consumer advertisements:
minimized or omitted risk information, misleading communication of the
indication or overstatement of efficacy, and unsubstantiated
comparative claims. These are the problems identified by many on this
board (and beaten down by those vested in refractive surgery). These
problems are not soley the fault of the manufacturers but also the
fault of many careless surgeons, and refractive centers. It will be
interesting to see how the long arm of the government reaches when
evaluating these issues as they relate to what has been going on in
refractive surgery for years.
An Incredible
| |
| serebel 2005-04-11, 6:14 pm |
| It's a good thing that they haven't been successfully sued. Most suits
against them are frivolous, and no one puts a gun to the head of a
person to have lasik in the first place.
SErebel
| |
| serebel 2005-04-11, 6:14 pm |
| Just what we need, more government nosing in on people's business. The
gov't is just as incompetant as the morons who depend entirely on it.
SErebel
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2005-04-11, 6:14 pm |
| Anybody who thinks a paid advertisement is an informed consent is
seriously mistaken. At the very best, ads will raise awareness of
potential resolutions to problems. At worst, the grossly misinform.
Virtually no patient receives refractive surgery without a detailed
informed consent process that may include a video presentation,
question and answer period, and a legal document that must be signed
by the patient. This is the process that meets current medical-legal
requirements, not an ad on the radio.
Glenn Hagele
Executive Director
Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org
http://www.USAEyes.org
http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org
I am not a doctor.
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2005-04-11, 6:14 pm |
| We all saw what mass-tort can do to a legitimate and medically safe
product with the silicone breast implant fiasco. Put a major company
into bankruptcy, make millions for lawyers, and the patients who did
have problems had them at the same rate as patients who never had any
implant of any kind.
The refractive surgery industry has never been subject to anything
like this, but given the greed and avarice in western countries, I'm
sure somebody is going to try someday.
Glenn Hagele
Executive Director
Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org
http://www.USAEyes.org
http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org
I am not a doctor.
| |
| LASIKtruth 2005-04-13, 4:44 pm |
| You know, Barnard was right. You DO need spell check and grammar check.
Perhaps there are some remedial education courses available at your local
community college.
"serebel" <serebel@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1113185548.574284.110680@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Just what we need, more government nosing in on people's business. The
> gov't is just as incompetant as the morons who depend entirely on it.
>
> SErebel
>
| |
| LASIKtruth 2005-04-13, 4:44 pm |
| No, no one puts a gun to anyone's head to have LASIK. People have LASIK
because the nature and extent of the damage LASIK causes has been rigorously
supressed. People who fully understand LASIK would never consent to surgery.
"serebel" <serebel@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1113185231.023609.277800@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> It's a good thing that they haven't been successfully sued. Most suits
> against them are frivolous, and no one puts a gun to the head of a
> person to have lasik in the first place.
>
> SErebel
>
| |
| serebel 2005-04-13, 4:44 pm |
|
LASIKtruth wrote:
> No, no one puts a gun to anyone's head to have LASIK.
The only thing out or your mouth that's correct.
People have LASIK
> because the nature and extent of the damage LASIK causes has been
rigorously
> supressed.
Back to Hanson's bull. More gollywoggles under his bed.
People who fully understand LASIK would never consent to surgery.
>
I guess the millions of happy people can't understand. By the way, how
are your eyes doing you idiot?
SErebel
|
|
|
|