Legal Opinion

United States v. Michael Kaplan

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided September 9, 2016No. 15-10241PublishedCited by 38 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

TALLMAN, Circuit Judge:

It is axiomatic that physicians are expected to do no harm. When a physician breaches that duty and puts his own interests above those of his patients, great harm can occur. Though the regulation of the practice of medicine is delegated to the states, when a physician misuses medical devices and threatens public health, the physician may run afoul of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (“FDCA”). Doctor Michael Kaplan, a Nevada urologist, entered that domain when he decided to start reusing single-use plastic needle guides during prostate biopsy exams.

Kaplan…

2Cases cited34 opinions

  1. Jackson v. VirginiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
  2. United States v. OlanoSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
  3. Neder v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1999
  4. Perrin v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
  5. Buckman Co. v. Plaintiffs' Legal CommitteeSupreme Court of the United States · 2001

29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by38 opinions

  1. United States v. Omar QaziCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2020
  2. United States v. Samir BenamorCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2019
  3. United States v. Ravneet SinghCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2020
  4. Kenton Crowley v. Epicept Corp.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2018
  5. United States v. Tuan LuongCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2020

33 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API