The FDA published updated guidelines for dietary supplement
manufacturers, distributors and sellers outlining
their obligations to report serious adverse reactions (SAEs)
regarding their products to the federal government. Rumberger
Kirk & Caldwell attorney Dan Gerber discusses the reporting
requirements and what manufacturers can do to ensure that they are
The FDA defines an SAE as "a complication that results in
death, a life-threatening experience, inpatient hospitalization, a
persistent or significant disability or incapacity, or a congenital
anomaly or birth defect; or requires, based on a reasonable medical
judgment, a medical or surgical intervention to prevent an outcome
Being diligent in reporting for one thing. Also,
understanding that it gets tricky real fast if the doctor or a
family member reports something and you (the manufacturer) do
not. Also, regular auditing occurs to ensure that
manufacturers are compliant.
They should work with trade groups and legal counsel to
determine when a warning should be included and the strength of the
warning. Also, being diligent in investigating SAERs can help
signal whether additional reporting is required.
A manufacturer's insurance policy language governs whether
an SAER should be reported or not. The purpose for an SAER is
not for a person to make a claim, so the most logical solution
under most insurance policies would be that no claim reporting is
required to the insurance carrier. However, given that
Congress specified that these are not admissible and are often only
anecdotal and rarely lead to a reportable claim.
Dietary supplement manufacturers must be aware that
insurers may request SAER filings or summaries before one is bound
within an insurance agreement. You cannot avoid the SAER duty
simply because you are concerned it may affect your insurance
coverage. However, you should be aware that excessive SAER filings
may result in higher insurance coverage or no coverage at all.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
A federal district court in California recently ruled that a consumer who voluntarily provided a cellphone number in order to complete an online purchase gave "prior express consent" to receive a text message from the business’s vendors under the TCPA.
As previously noted on this blog, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) issued an interim final rule in June 2012 to implement the Equal Access to Justice Act. At the time, the CFPB requested public comment on the interim final rule.
A federal court recently held that a vendor of a VoIP service that allows callers to circumvent caller identification is not secondarily liable for the alleged TCPA violations of the caller that uses that service. See Clark v. Avatar Techs. PHL, Inc., No. 13-2777.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) is preparing to make significant revisions to the regulations promulgated under the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act of 1975 (HMDA) (Regulation C) by requiring home mortgage lenders to disclose far more information to regulators. In its first step toward these revisions, the CFPB is convening a Small Business Review Panel (as required by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act) to seek input from small lenders on the proposed changes bef
Three and a half years after passage of the Dodd-Frank Act, the much anticipated final Volcker Rule has been issued. On December 10, 2013, the federal banking regulators, the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC"), and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission ("CFTC") (collectively, the "Agencies") issued a final rule ("Final Rule") to implement Section 13 of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 ("BHCA") ...
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that a successor mortgage servicer violated Section 533(c) of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) when it attempted to collect, or failed to remove, fees incurred in connection with a rescinded Notice of Default.
Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.
The CPSC is voting soon on whether to hold a workshop to discuss potential ways to reduce third party testing costs through additional "determinations" that certain products or materials do not require third party testing.