These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.
99 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 18840254)
1. Federal regulatory pre-emption of state tort claims against the manufacturers of medical devices and pharmaceutical drugs. Jacobstein JM J Law Med Ethics; 2008; 36(3):594-7. PubMed ID: 18840254 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Permitting product liability litigation for FDA-approved drugs and devices promotes patient safety. Kesselheim AS Clin Pharmacol Ther; 2010 Jun; 87(6):645-7. PubMed ID: 20485322 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Preemption of the "fraud on the FDA" exception to Michigan's tort immunity statute for drug manufacturers: reconsidering Garcia and Desiano after Levine. Murdey J Food Drug Law J; 2011; 66(1):85-104, ii-iii. PubMed ID: 24505848 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. The impact of Wyeth v. Levine on FDA regulation of prescription drugs. Ausness RC Food Drug Law J; 2010; 65(2):247-83, i-ii. PubMed ID: 24475542 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Bad medicine: prescription drugs, preemption, and the potential for a no-fault fix. Smirniotopoulos A Rev Law Soc Change; 2012; 35(4):793-862. PubMed ID: 22363960 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Tort litigation and federal regulation of medical devices. Piwinski S; Fitzpatrick S JAMA; 2008 Oct; 300(16):1881-2; author reply 1882. PubMed ID: 18940973 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. Discovery rule in medical malpractice under the Federal Tort Claims Act: the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Kubrick was not meant to be secondary authority. Zajdel C J Contemp Health Law Policy; 2004; 20(2):443-66. PubMed ID: 15239365 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc.: revisiting pre-emption for medical devices. Patsner B J Law Med Ethics; 2009; 37(2):305-17. PubMed ID: 19493075 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Tort claims and federal regulation of medical devices vs pharmaceuticals. Green M JAMA; 2009 Sep; 302(11):1169; author reply 1169-70. PubMed ID: 19755694 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. The medical device safety act of 2009: clarifying preemption. Turcott RG; Ashley EA Am J Ther; 2009; 16(6):471-4. PubMed ID: 19940607 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. The deregulatory effects of preempting tort litigation: FDA regulation of medical devices. Gostin LO JAMA; 2008 May; 299(19):2313-6. PubMed ID: 18492972 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. Buckman extended: federal preemption of state fraud-on-the-FDA statutes. Gaddis CA Food Drug Law J; 2014; 69(1):113-36, iii. PubMed ID: 24772688 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. A pivotal medical-device case. Greenspan H N Engl J Med; 2008 Apr; 358(16):1758. PubMed ID: 18420514 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. The Medical Device Safety Act of 2009. Curfman GD; Morrissey S; Drazen JM N Engl J Med; 2009 Apr; 360(15):1550-1. PubMed ID: 19297562 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. A pivotal medical-device case. Curfman GD; Morrissey S; Drazen JM N Engl J Med; 2008 Jan; 358(1):76-7. PubMed ID: 18172178 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. Woodruff v. Covington--physicians associated with federally funded health-care programs may not be immune to claims brought under Federal Tort Claims Act. Lee J J Law Med Ethics; 2005; 33(3):622-4. PubMed ID: 16240746 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. The need for federal preemption of state tort claims in the context of "new drugs" and premarket-approved medical devices. Mottes LM Seton Hall Law Rev; 2011; 41(2):723-63. PubMed ID: 21739761 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. A pivotal medical-device case. Sonder G N Engl J Med; 2008 Apr; 358(16):1758. PubMed ID: 18426012 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Prenatal tort law and the personhood of the unborn child: a separate legal existence. Roden GJ St Thomas Law Rev; 2003; 16(1):207-86. PubMed ID: 16211760 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. Drugs, Devices & Discovery: Using Fee-Shifting to Resolve the Twombly/Iqbal Problem for Parallel Claims Under the FDCA. Norris CT Food Drug Law J; 2015; 70(1):187-207, ii-iii. PubMed ID: 26292477 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]