Trident Hip Replacement System

Erica Lindsay, PharmD, MBA, JD, is a health care attorney practicing in the greater Chicagoland area. She has worked in pharmacy management and compliance for more than 15 years. Dr. Lindsay consults clients through complex pharmacy regulations and guidelines, including 340B, Medicare and Medicaid billing, and HIPAA compliance. She is on faculty of PharmCon providing instruction on pharmacy legal and regulatory issues. Dr. Lindsay is active in various organizations including the American Bar Association where she is Vice of the Nursing and Allied Healthcare Professionals Task Force and members of the Health Care Compliance Association, Cook County Bar Association, and the Chicago Bar Association. She is a graduate of Florida A&M University

That the modification involved a subsequent remedial measure. involving the issue of whether the federal law requirement that generic drugs must bear the same FDAapproved labels as their brand-name counterparts preempts state law claims for failure to warn? Answer Selected Answer: That federal law preempted state law claims for failure to warn based on strict liability but that failure to warn claims based on negligence could proceed. That federal law preempted state law claims for failure to warn. Correct Answer:

This story is replete with fascinating facts and the intricacies that are inherent in the facts of the case make for a great story.The baseball bat was broken from the outset when it was bought by the plaintiff. Therefore, the defendant should have to return the baseball bat and pay the money back to the plaintiff that plaintiff paid for said bat. The plaintiff bought a baseball bat from the defendant and the baseball bat turned out to be broken because, since as soon as the defendant used the bat to play baseball, the bat shattered into a million pieces. Shattering into a million pieces certainly violates the implied warranty of merchantability under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC 2-314). No Industria De Calcados Martini Ltda. v.

To illustrate, the Alabama Supreme Court ruled they had jurisdiction over Owens and Fitzner Pontiac-Buick-Cadillac, Inc. (“Fitzner”). Lowry v. Owens, 621 So. 2d 1262, 1267 (Ala. 1993). Fitzner is a Mississippi corporation licensed to do business in Mississippi. Id. at 1263. A third party initiated contact with Owens who bought cars from Fitzner for resale in Alabama. Id. Lowry picked up the car with a third party, and a later inspection revealed the car had been wrecked and was not new as advertised. Id. Lowry sued Owens and Fitzner for fraudulent misrepresentation and deceit from the original car sale. Id. at 1264. The Supreme Court of Alabama needed to determine if Fitzner had sufficient minimum contacts to justify the court asserting personal jurisdiction over Fitzner in Alabama. Id. Minimum contacts is made up of purposeful availment and foreseeability. Id. at 1265. Fitzner’s alleged fraud alone is not sufficient for purposeful

6-2. How does Target’s decision to adopt the ClearRx medicine labeling and packaging system (see page 160) fit the definition of ethical communication from chapter 1? 3

In conclusion, given that due to lack of better judgement throughout all the Rite Aid chain store within the nation many of the policies had to be rewritten based on pill bottles being disposed with patient’s personal information listed on them. Due to those actions it has brought into investigation by several agencies such as HHS Office of Civil Rights (OCR) and FTC which will focus on questioning the laws broken regarding HIPAA laws that was violated. Consequently, following the entire investigation it was found that Rite Aid was held liable under the HIPAA privacy act for improperly disregarding patients pill bottles in the public garbage. The ending result of this case has found Rite Aid at fault and they agreed to pay a settlement in the

HIPAA complaint procedures protect the rights of all persons and their right to privacy. As technology continues to advance, the need for more stringent and relevant regulations has grown. The HIPAA Act, aims to provide

The case could be appealed based on long arm statute since, Walker the Iowan resident had posted information in New York website. Long arm statute law gives a local state court jurisdiction oven an out of state company or individual whose action caused damaged locally (in this case New York) or to a local resident (Holte, 2009). Thus the legal test is whether the out of state defendant has contacts within the state which are satisfactorily

Upon hearing the case on several violated privacy rules of HIPAA Act of 1996 by Cignet Health of Prince George’s County, MD (Cignet), the HHS Office for Civil Rights (OCR) found the accused guilty of breach of privacy. A civil money penalty (CMP) of $4.3 million was imposed on the company due to the violations identified by the Office of Civil Rights. This civil money penalty was the first one to be issued on any entity by the Department for violations of the HIPAA Privacy Rule. The amount of penalty imposed was determined by violation category and may increase if authorized by the HITECH Act section 13410(d). Cignet did not request a hearing when notified on the civil money penalty and therefore, its right to appeal against the imposed penalty is no longer viable.

Since about the mid-late 1980’s many states have implemented and enforced statutes to limit tort lawsuits. Tort reform is the political term for redefining tort laws and reducing tort litigation, damages, compensation, and even amounts awarded (Quinn). The reformation of the nation’s tort system, or changing laws throughout a state dealing with injuries to a person or their property have done a lot more harm than good for consumers. While each tort reform law varies depending on the state, they all have one of the following goals in mind: “(1) to make it more difficult for injured people to file a lawsuit, (2) to make it more difficult for injured people to obtain a jury trial, (3) to place limits on the amount of money injured people receive in a lawsuit (Lane).”

All monitoring procedures and violations rules for the facility are in accordance with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPPA). In addition, all monitoring procedures and violations rules for the facility ensure the safe and secure use, dissemination and storage of electronic health information.

Zimmer Biomet is a product is a reverse shoulder implant designed to help patients restore arm movement. However, increased instances of failure have led to massive recall of this medical device along with lawsuits. Overall, there are three types of claims associated by recalled products, defective manufacture claim, failure to warn claim and defective design claim. The failure to warn claim occurs in cases where the manufacturer of a product fails to notify or educate users on the defect and risk associated with using the recalled product. Under the defective design claim, the product manufacturer is held responsible for failure to provide adequate information regarding product development and failing to test and foresee defects that may be caused by product failure.

Among the benchmark legal precedents in American jurisprudence to address the field of private security, the case of Aetna Casualty and Surety Company v. Pendelton Detectives of Mississippi, Inc. has proven to carry lasting implications, both for private security officers and the entities which contract their services. This case involves a dispute between Aetna, a company which acted as an insurer and surety bond provider for The Merchants Company, Inc., and Pendelton Detectives of Mississippi, Inc., the private security firm Aetna contracted to protect Merchants' distribution warehouse facilities. When Merchants discovered through a routine inventory check that an inordinate amount of merchandise was being stolen from their warehouse, while Pendleton security officers were glaringly negligent in their duties, the company filed a claim for $430,266.68 with their insurance provider. After satisfying the claim, Aetna elected to file suit against Pendleton to recover this amount, and was subsequently awarded a partial sum of $174,000 by a jury. This decision was overturned, however, after a district court granted Pendleton's Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law, and when Aetna filed their own appeal with the circuit court of appeals, the scene was set for a decisive examination of negligence within the administration of private security.

This paper will consider the facts associated with the case of Stella Liebeck versus McDonald’s, resulting from Ms. Liebeck’s efforts to collect for damages sustained when she spilled extremely hot coffee into her lap in 1992. The issues, applicable laws and the conclusion the jury reached will also be covered as well as the subsequent impacts on American tort law following this decision.

The recall was issued by the FDA as a result of a human error. The end user manipulated the unit by disabling the MRI from the MRU. In this particular case, the developer’s responsibility lies on letting the equipment to operate without a critical safety component. Nonetheless, in a life-threatening system the project manager and business analyst must anticipate what can go wrong by extensively assessing the business risk; undoubtedly, the project team did not properly manage the risk assumptions.