Proponents of H.R. 5, the Access to Healthcare Act just passed by the U.S. House of Representatives -- chiefly doctors, administrators of hospitals, clinics and other health care facilities, health care corporations, groups like the American Medical Association, and politicians who avowedly want to erect hurdles to would-be medical malpractice plaintiffs -- laud the recent passage of the bill in the House.
It would be sheer understatement to merely state that giant drug manufacturing and medical device maker Johnson & Johnson (J&J) has opened itself up to some medical malpractice exposure and other legal liability over the past several years.
Imagine a situation where those optimally placed to signal the alarm on medical malpractice, potentially dangerous drugs and medical devices, flaws in the regulatory approval system, medical fraud and related matters were unable to report them without risking personal reprisals.
Several past medical malpractice lawsuits have alleged that some surgeons lack adequate training for using the devices central to robot-assisted surgery, with the result that they make medical errors that harm -- and sometimes kill -- their patients.
Four of the preeminent drug pharmaceutical manufacturers in the world -- Johnson & Johnson, Eli Lilly & Co., Pfizer Inc. and AstraZeneca Plc -- obviously share a number of attributes and have much in common.
The price of gasoline is frequently used as a gauge to measure collective financial hardship in America. Obviously, and as the price of fuel rises, increasingly more people feel the sting in their wallets, with spillover effects that become quite widespread in society.
Bob DeRose is the President-elect of the Ohio Association for Justice, an organization with a stated goal to "protect access to the civil justice system" for all people.
Here's the short answer by the Utah Supreme Court in response to the argument that doctors should on principle be immune from the medical malpractice claims of third parties: No.
Perhaps nowhere is the divide between the FDA's desire to stop unsafe products from coming to market and medical device makers' desire to be free from increased regulatory review more apparent than in their jostling over what is called the 510(k) program.