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 69 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
:D TYSM


miss.ashley

  • Member
  • Posts: 371
Reply 3 on: Yesterday
YES! Correct, THANKS for helping me on my review

 

Did you know?

Prostaglandins were first isolated from human semen in Sweden in the 1930s. They were so named because the researcher thought that they came from the prostate gland. In fact, prostaglandins exist and are synthesized in almost every cell of the body.

Did you know?

Immunoglobulin injections may give short-term protection against, or reduce severity of certain diseases. They help people who have an inherited problem making their own antibodies, or those who are having certain types of cancer treatments.

Did you know?

Patients who have undergone chemotherapy for the treatment of cancer often complain of a lack of mental focus; memory loss; and a general diminution in abilities such as multitasking, attention span, and general mental agility.

Did you know?

Persons who overdose with cardiac glycosides have a better chance of overall survival if they can survive the first 24 hours after the overdose.

Did you know?

Many supplement containers do not even contain what their labels say. There are many documented reports of products containing much less, or more, that what is listed on their labels. They may also contain undisclosed prescription drugs and even contaminants.

For a complete list of videos, visit our video library