BusinessWeek Online has a great article to help you review your business plans for the end of the year. It includes a lot of great advice for determining how well your plans for last year will serve you next year. The topics include your business structure, personal investment strategy, company retirement plan, tax considerations, insurance policies, and transition plan. A lot of these issues will require meeting with your attorney, accountant, or financial planner, so now is a good time to set up those appointments (you'll especially want to meet with your accountant before tax season kicks off!).
Not mentioned in the article is the need for a personal checkup as well - you should review any changes in your life or finances that occurred in 2006, and determine if your existing plan is still the best way to go. You may need to make changes to your investment portfolio, will or trust, and insurance coverage. And if you don't have all three of these, I can help.
If you're looking for an attorney to serve you, feel free to contact me at 952-544-0805, or emily@emilyfingerlaw.com.
Monday, December 10, 2007
Thursday, December 6, 2007
Medtronic & the Supreme Court
A suit against Medtronic was heard by the Supreme Court this week. To jog your memory: Riegel v. Medtronic began when a balloon catheter manufactured by Medtronic burst, causing injury to Mr. Riegel. This may sound like a common product liability design-defect case - except that the catheter's design was FDA-approved. Thus, the issue in the case is whether FDA approval of a design may preempt state law product liability claims.
Medtronic argued that the FDA is charged with evaluating the safety and effectiveness of a medical device, and that puts the FDA scientists in a better position to make determinations about safety than a jury. To allow the plaintiffs claim would essentially allow juries to second-guess the FDA. Several justices appeared to agree, expressing concern that a jury could better assess safety than the FDA, and concern that the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act expressly put such decisions in the hands of experts.
Attorneys for the plaintiff cited products that were recalled with design defects, and questioned whether Congress really intended to limit liability in those cases.
You can read the transcript of the oral arguments here.
Medtronic argued that the FDA is charged with evaluating the safety and effectiveness of a medical device, and that puts the FDA scientists in a better position to make determinations about safety than a jury. To allow the plaintiffs claim would essentially allow juries to second-guess the FDA. Several justices appeared to agree, expressing concern that a jury could better assess safety than the FDA, and concern that the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act expressly put such decisions in the hands of experts.
Attorneys for the plaintiff cited products that were recalled with design defects, and questioned whether Congress really intended to limit liability in those cases.
You can read the transcript of the oral arguments here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
