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.
126 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 7476832)
1. Can Missouri health care providers be held liable under strict product liability law? Cole CH Mo Med; 1995 Sep; 92(9):581-3. PubMed ID: 7476832 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Perspectives. Battle heats up over product liability reform. Miller D Faulkner Grays Med Health; 1995 Apr; 49(17):suppl 1-4. PubMed ID: 10141116 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. Legally speaking. Who's to blame for faulty equipment? Tammelleo AD RN; 1990 Oct; 53(10):67-72. PubMed ID: 2218328 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. Preemption and medical devices: a response to Adler and Mann. Hermann M; Ritts GJ Food Drug Law J; 1996; 51(1):1-19. PubMed ID: 11794345 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Class actions in breast implant litigation. Peerless MJ; Eizenga MA Health Law Can; 1996 Feb; 16(3):78-83. PubMed ID: 10173416 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Silicone breast implants. Can emerging medical, legal, and scientific concepts be reconciled? Snyder JW J Leg Med; 1997 Jun; 18(2):133-220. PubMed ID: 9230567 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. Medical device recalls from 2004 to 2006: a focus on Class I recalls. Villarraga ML; Guerin HL; Lam T Food Drug Law J; 2007; 62(3):581-92. PubMed ID: 17915400 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. Medical devices; preemption of state product liability claims--FDA. Proposed rule. Fed Regist; 1997 Dec; 62(239):65384-8. PubMed ID: 10176832 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Implants with flaws: disclosure and delay. Meier B N Y Times Web; 2005 Jun; ():C1, C3. PubMed ID: 15966120 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. Premarket approval and federal preemption of product liability claims in the wake of Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr. Jarcho DG Food Drug Law J; 1996; 51(4):613-8. PubMed ID: 11797730 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. The new product liability regime. Stoianoff N Australas Biotechnol; 1992 Oct; 2(5):304-5. PubMed ID: 1368929 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. Medical devices; preemption of state product liability claims--FDA. Correction. Fed Regist; 1997 Dec; 62(242):66179. PubMed ID: 10179302 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. Legal developments in healthcare. Holubitsky DJ Leadersh Health Serv; 1996; 5(4):30-3. PubMed ID: 10159552 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Reassessing the law of preemption. Dinh VD Georgetown Law J; 2000 Jul; 88(7):2085-118. PubMed ID: 11503659 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Compared to what? Instructing the jury on product defect under the Products Liability Act and the Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability. Conk GW Seton Hall Law Rev; 1999; 30(1):273-303. PubMed ID: 10848107 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Managing the risks of a defective product. Lippincott KM Occup Health Saf; 2008 Sep; 77(9):70, 72. PubMed ID: 18807838 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Changing technology in health: product liability. Kelly JG Collegian; 1998 Apr; 5(2):24-9. PubMed ID: 9644337 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Tort law deference to FDA regulation of medical devices. Green MD; Schultz WB Georgetown Law J; 2000 Jul; 88(7):2119-45. PubMed ID: 11503660 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Manufacturers' liability for drugs and medical devices under the Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability. Dreier WA Seton Hall Law Rev; 1999; 30(1):258-64. PubMed ID: 10848105 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. License to maim: federal pre-emption and the Medical Device Amendments of 1976. Petrella ME Health Matrix Clevel; 1996; 6(2):349-89. PubMed ID: 10178392 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]