Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T19:02:33.606Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Recent Developments in Health Law

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Recent Developments in Health Law
Information
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , Volume 23 , Issue 1 , Spring 1995 , pp. 101 - 109
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References

In April 1991, the FDA issued a final rule requiring the filing of a premarket approval application prior to the commercial distribution of a silicone breast implant (56 Fed. Reg. 14,621 (1991)). As a result, silicone gel implant manufacturers withdrew their products from the market; none submitted to the rigorous premarket approval process. In April 1992, the FDA further restricted the use of silicone implants to clinical trials and reconstructive surgery.Google Scholar
No foreign manufacturers are included in the settlement. Additionally, the settlement agreement has brought claims that the agreement is unfair to potential foreign plaintiffs because, while the preregistration process only affects the amounts that American claimants can receive, foreign claimants are precluded from recovery unless they register. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals is presently considering the merits of this issue.Google Scholar
It is estimated that over 12,000 women opted out of the settlement, with more than 60 percent of them residing in Texas, a jurisdiction that has recently seen several favorable plaintiffs’ verdicts.Google Scholar
1994 WL 578353 at *7.Google Scholar

References

Feldman, Paul, “Prop. 187 Sponsors Blame Foes for Illegal Immigrants’ Fears Over Seeking Health Care,” Los Angeles Times, Nov. 26, 1994, at 33A.Google Scholar
Daily Report for Executives, “Health Care, California Votes to Deny Health Care to Illegal Immigrants,” Nov. 10, 1994, at A216.Google Scholar
“Fearful Aliens in California Staying Away from Clinics,” New York Times, Nov. 12, 1994, at 9.Google Scholar
Romney, Lee Marquis, Julie, “Activists Cite Boy's Death as First Prop. 187 Casualty,” Los Angeles Times, Nov. 23, 1994, at 1A.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
See Daily Report, supra note 2, at 9.Google Scholar
Romney, Marquis, , supra note 4.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982).Google Scholar
Id. at 221.Google Scholar
Id. at 210–11.Google Scholar
Id. at 216–17, 225.Google Scholar
Feldman, Paul Connell, Rich, “Wilson Acts to Enforce Parts of Prop. 187,” Los Angeles Times, Nov. 10, 1994, at 1A.Google Scholar
Plyler v. Doe, supra note 9, at 227.Google Scholar
Id. at 225–26Google Scholar
Feldman, , supra note 1, at 33A.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
See League of United Latin American Citizens v. Wilson (CD. Cal. 94-7569-MRP); Gregorio T. v. Wilson (C.D. Cal. 94–7652); and Children Who Want To Go To School v. Wilson (CD. Cal. 94-7570).Google Scholar
“California: Federal Court Blocks Most of California Proposition,” B. Health Law Rep., 3 (1994): 49.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
See Daily Report, supra note 2, at 9.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
See McDonnell, Patrick, “Health Clinics Report Declines After Prop. 187,” Los Angeles Times, Nov. 26, 1994, at 1A.Google Scholar

References

National Organization for Women v. Operation Rescue, 37 F.3d 646, 648–49 (D.C. Cir. 1994).Google Scholar
Id at 649.Google Scholar
On January 26, 1990, a district court issued a permanent injunction; subsequently, on July 31, 1990, it issued a revised permanent injunction. In 1993, various health care facilities successfully sought enforcement of the permanent injunction. See National Organization for Women v. Operation Rescue, 747 F. Supp. 760, 661 (D. D.C. 1990); and National Organization for Women v. Operation Rescue, 816 F. Supp. 729, 736–37 (D. D.C. 1993).Google Scholar
National Organization for Women v. Operation Rescue, 37 F.3d 646, 649 (1994).Google Scholar
Id. at 654.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
IdGoogle Scholar
Madsen v. Women's Health Center, Inc., 114 S. Ct. 2516, 2528 (1994). See also Smith, Paul C., “Madsen v. Women's Health Center, Inc.,” J. L. Med, & Ethics, 22 (1994): 292–93.Google Scholar
National Organization for Women v. Operation Rescue, 37 F.3d 646, 655 (1994).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Madsen, 114 S. Ct. at 2526.Google Scholar
National Organization for Women, 37 F.3d at 655 (quoting Madsen, 114 S. Ct. at 2526).Google Scholar
Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner, 407 U.S. 551, 568 (1972).Google Scholar
Id at 656, 649, 655.Google Scholar
Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 447 (1969).Google Scholar
Madsen, 114 S. Ct. at 2524 (quoting Califano v. Yamasaki, 442 U.S. 682, 702 (1979)).Google Scholar
National Organization for Women v. Operation Rescue, 37 F.3d at 657–58.Google Scholar
Id at 658.Google Scholar