To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.
Three additional states enacted legislation in recent weeks
barring the accumulator adjustment program cost sharing
framework. Accumulator adjustment programs seek to reverse the
impact of manufacturer cost sharing assistance for prescription
drugs by not counting amounts offset by such assistance toward a
patient s deductible. This can result in high patient
out-of-pocket responsibilities after the manufacturer s cost
sharing assistance has been exhausted. For this reason, both drug
manufacturers and patient advocates have sought to bar accumulator
adjustment programs on both the federal and state levels.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.
On April 28, 2021, Philadelphia Mayor Jim Kenney signed Bill No. 200625 which, effective January 1,
2022, prohibits employers from requiring prospective employees to
undergo testing for the presence of marijuana as a condition of
employment. Currently, only New York City and Nevada have similar drug testing restrictions,
but we expect this trend to continue. Nevada prohibits employers
from taking adverse action against applicants who test positive for
marijuana, with exceptions for, among other jobs, safety-sensitive
positions and motor vehicle drivers who are subject to testing
under state or federal law. New York City, with some similar
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.
On April 22, 2021, the Supreme Court of the United States
unanimously held that Section 13(b) of the Federal Trade Commission
Act does not authorize the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to
seek, or a court to award, equitable monetary relief.
AMG
Capital Management, LLC et al. v. Federal Trade
Commission (
AMG) upends a decades-long practice
of the FTC seeking equitable monetary relief from defendants in
federal district court rather than invoking its own administrative
procedures and redress provisions. The decision is likely to have a
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), industry,
policymakers, and consumers share a common goal of ensuring that
the foods and beverages Americans eat and drink are safe, and the
law has long prohibited the adulteration of a food that contains any poisonous or deleterious substance which may
render it injurious to health. As science and technology
advance, so too does our collective understanding of what that
famous statutory phrase from the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
should mean. Accordingly, FDA s mission in overseeing the
The SCOTUS decision in
Ford Motor Company v. Montana Eighth
Judicial District Court
1 is a decision that we believe will
alter the legal landscape in the defense of product liability
matters with respect to the personal jurisdiction defense. We have
reported on this case in prior posts (
seeThe Law of Personal Jurisdiction Is About to Be
Changed Again - What Life Science Companies Should Expect), and
now that a decision has been handed down by the SCOTUS, we would
like to share some of our thoughts on how we believe the decision
will impact the defense of life science companies in product