<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: U.S. Supreme Court Decides Wyeth v. Levine, Holding There Is No Federal Pre-emption</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.thenewyorkmedicalmalpracticelawblog.com/2009/03/us-supreme-court-decides-wyeth-v-levine-holding-there-is-no-federal-pre-emption/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.thenewyorkmedicalmalpracticelawblog.com/2009/03/us-supreme-court-decides-wyeth-v-levine-holding-there-is-no-federal-pre-emption/</link>
	<description>An overview of New York medical malpractice, products liability and personal injury law, and the news that affects it</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 09 Jul 2010 20:53:21 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=abc</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: throckmorton</title>
		<link>http://www.thenewyorkmedicalmalpracticelawblog.com/2009/03/us-supreme-court-decides-wyeth-v-levine-holding-there-is-no-federal-pre-emption/comment-page-1/#comment-205</link>
		<dc:creator>throckmorton</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 06 Mar 2009 02:38:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thenewyorkmedicalmalpracticelawblog.com/?p=420#comment-205</guid>
		<description>What timing.  I just got an email from our childrens hospital.  They are taking phenergan off the formulary so the only antiemetic we now have is Zofran which is bost costly and secondly doesn&#039;t seem to work for our kids on chemo.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What timing.  I just got an email from our childrens hospital.  They are taking phenergan off the formulary so the only antiemetic we now have is Zofran which is bost costly and secondly doesn&#8217;t seem to work for our kids on chemo.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: throckmorton</title>
		<link>http://www.thenewyorkmedicalmalpracticelawblog.com/2009/03/us-supreme-court-decides-wyeth-v-levine-holding-there-is-no-federal-pre-emption/comment-page-1/#comment-204</link>
		<dc:creator>throckmorton</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 06 Mar 2009 02:35:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thenewyorkmedicalmalpracticelawblog.com/?p=420#comment-204</guid>
		<description>This case was originally about an inter-arterial injection of phenergan.  Interarterial injections are contraindicated for all medications that are IV (intervenous push).  In the case, a physicians assistant gave the medication incorrectly.  Rather than a lawsuit against him, this was a deep pockets case and so the plaintiff went after the company with the biggest pockets.  Even though this medication is now generic.  Interestingly, phenergan does have a warning about potential gangreen with IV injections.  So, a PA gives a medication in a way that is true negligence and the response is to sue the company that made it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This case was originally about an inter-arterial injection of phenergan.  Interarterial injections are contraindicated for all medications that are IV (intervenous push).  In the case, a physicians assistant gave the medication incorrectly.  Rather than a lawsuit against him, this was a deep pockets case and so the plaintiff went after the company with the biggest pockets.  Even though this medication is now generic.  Interestingly, phenergan does have a warning about potential gangreen with IV injections.  So, a PA gives a medication in a way that is true negligence and the response is to sue the company that made it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
