United States v. Michael Kaplan
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
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
- Jackson v. VirginiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- United States v. OlanoSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
- Neder v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1999
- Perrin v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- 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
- United States v. Omar QaziCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2020
- United States v. Samir BenamorCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2019
- United States v. Ravneet SinghCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2020
- Kenton Crowley v. Epicept Corp.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2018
- United States v. Tuan LuongCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2020
33 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.