This topic contains a solution. Click here to go to the answer

Author Question: Which of the following is not subject to mandatory bargaining? a. drug testing b. retirement plans ... (Read 133 times)

craiczarry

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 527
Which of the following is not subject to mandatory bargaining?
 a. drug testing
  b. retirement plans c. holidays
  d. no-strike clauses
  e. all are subject to mandatory bargaining

Question 2

In 1999, the Drugs-R-Us began testing its new drug, Reduceo, a medicine to help people lose weight. Tests looked promising and, in 2006, the company applied to the FDA for approval to market Reduceo as a prescription drug. In March 2009, the FDA granted Drug-R-Us approval to market Reduceo. Reduceo was sold with some diet enhancing cookies that contained no drugs but were claimed to help dieting with Reduceo. Frank saw an ad for the new drug. The Reduceo ad stated that it was a wonder drug and tests prove it is the safest weight reduction drug on the market today Frank was interested and made an appointment to see his doctor. Frank's physician prescribed the new drug for his patient. Frank had no success using other weight-loss drugs, and dieting and exercise seemed ineffective. Frank took Reduceo from June until the end of August and lost 25 lbs. He also ate Reduceo's cookies. He was delighted with his weight loss, but was concerned because dots appeared before his eyes, causing disorientation. One day, the dots appeared before Frank's eyes while he was driving. He became disoriented and hit a tree and was seriously injured. He sued Drugs-R-Us, alleging negligence in manufacturing and inadequate warning of possible effects, as well as for deceptive advertising. If it turns out that Frank had a vision problem before he started taking Reduceo, and the instructions with the drug told doctors not to prescribe it in such cases, Drugs-R-Us:
 a. would still be likely to be liable to Frank for his injuries as strict liability applies
  b. would still be liable to Frank for his injuries if it could be shown that the firm was negligent in the way it prepared the warning statement
  c. would probably not be liable due to the learned intermediary doctrine
  d. would not be liable due to FDA approval which shields the drug maker e. none of the other choices



Related Topics

Need homework help now?

Ask unlimited questions for free

Ask a Question
Marked as best answer by a Subject Expert

bd5255

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 386
Answer to Question 1

e

Answer to Question 2

c




craiczarry

  • Member
  • Posts: 527
Reply 2 on: Jun 24, 2018
Great answer, keep it coming :)


Hdosisshsbshs

  • Member
  • Posts: 315
Reply 3 on: Yesterday
Excellent

 

Did you know?

For about 100 years, scientists thought that peptic ulcers were caused by stress, spicy food, and alcohol. Later, researchers added stomach acid to the list of causes and began treating ulcers with antacids. Now it is known that peptic ulcers are predominantly caused by Helicobacter pylori, a spiral-shaped bacterium that normally exist in the stomach.

Did you know?

When blood is deoxygenated and flowing back to the heart through the veins, it is dark reddish-blue in color. Blood in the arteries that is oxygenated and flowing out to the body is bright red. Whereas arterial blood comes out in spurts, venous blood flows.

Did you know?

Human kidneys will clean about 1 million gallons of blood in an average lifetime.

Did you know?

The FDA recognizes 118 routes of administration.

Did you know?

Stevens-Johnson syndrome and Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis syndrome are life-threatening reactions that can result in death. Complications include permanent blindness, dry-eye syndrome, lung damage, photophobia, asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, permanent loss of nail beds, scarring of mucous membranes, arthritis, and chronic fatigue syndrome. Many patients' pores scar shut, causing them to retain heat.

For a complete list of videos, visit our video library