South Florida Stem Cell Clinic, Federal Prosecutors Ordered to Hash Out Details of Injunction
U.S. District Judge Ursula Ungaro ordered the parties to convene and share details of their agreement by Friday, June 14. On Monday Ungaro granted the federal government's motion for summary judgment against the experimental health care provider.
June 07, 2019 at 05:07 PM
4 minute read
A federal judge in the Southern District of Florida has ordered a South Florida stem cell clinic to discontinue one of its treatments and convene with prosecutors to agree on the parameters of a permanent injunction issued against it.
On Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Ursula Ungaro approved U.S. Stem Cell Inc.'s motion to arrange for a meeting with the United States Food and Drug Administration on the scope of the injunction imposed against the experimental health care company. Ungaro had ordered the injunction on the previous day when she granted the federal agency's motion for summary judgment against the stem cell care provider and defendants Theodore Gradel and Dr. Kristin Comella.
Although Ungaro concurred with the defendants that “a mutually agreed upon injunction would be desirable,” she stressed that the conditions of the injunction against them still stand through the June 14 deadline for an agreement.
“The court will not permit defendants to use this time as a grace period to continue to violate the [Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act],” she said. “Accordingly, until an injunction is entered by this court, defendants are prohibited from selling and/or engaging in any [stromal vascular fraction] therapy or other activities to be regulated by the FDA.”
The stromal vascular fraction therapy is at the center of the dispute between U.S. Stem Cell and the FDA. The department filed a complaint against the company in May 2018 alleging the company was improperly using SVF therapy — wherein a liposuction is performed to produce adipose that can be processed to purportedly heal damaged tissue elsewhere in the body —without proper FDA approval or oversight.
“Defendants are well aware that the SVF product is subject to regulation as a drug and biological product … and that their conduct violates the law and could lead to regulatory action,” the suit said. The complaint also noted patients who'd undergone the procedure were left blind.
Read the court's order issuing an injunction:
Ungaro's order granting the prosecutors' motion for summary judgment held SVF therapy is subject to FDA regulation despite the defendants' objections. She also agreed with the FDA that “there is a reasonable likelihood that Defendants will continue to violate the FDCA” as U.S. Stem Cell “continuously performed the SVF therapy in noncompliance” with warning letters from the federal agency.
In a press release issued by the department, Dr. Peter Marks, director of the FDA's Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, called the ruling “a victory for the FDA's work to stop these bad actors and to protect patients.”
“We are committed to continuing to pursue actions against those who put patients in harm's way by marketing unapproved stem cell products that skirt [the] FDA's regulations and federal law,” he said.
U.S. Stem Cell provided the Daily Business Review with a statement expressing disappointment with the court's order.
“While we believe there is substantial evidence to prove the efficacy of this protocol, we must immediately comply with the court as we review the decision,” the statement said. “U.S. Stem Cell Inc. and U.S. Stem Cell Clinic will continue to operate business as usual, but no longer offers the adipose/SVF procedure. We're hopeful the FDA will keep striving to work with the industry to establish clarity around life-saving innovations in regenerative medicine.”
Read more:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllLitigation Begins After Fatal Biscayne Bay Boating Crash
This Could Have Been a Year of a Federal Court Reckoning for Trump. Judges had Other Ideas
8 minute readMuhammad Ali's Daughter Accused of Ignoring South Florida Judge
Florida Law Firms Brace for Category 5 Hurricane Milton
Trending Stories
- 1The Law Firm Disrupted: Playing the Talent Game to Win
- 2Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
- 3BD Settles Thousands of Bard Hernia Mesh Lawsuits
- 4GlaxoSmithKline Settles Most Zantac Lawsuits for $2.2B
- 5A&O Shearman Adopts 3-Level Lockstep Pay Model Amid Shift to All-Equity Partnership
Who Got The Work
Blank Rome partner Andrew T. Hambelton has stepped in to defend Fragrancenet.com in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The case, filed Aug. 29 in New York Southern District Court by the Blakely Law Group, targets the defendants for allegedly selling counterfeit fragrance products. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Lorna G. Schofield, is 1:24-cv-06521, Abercrombie & Fitch Trading Co. v. Quester (US) Enterprises, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Davis Polk & Wardwell partners Mari Grace and Edmund Polubinski III have entered appearances for Australia-based Bitcoin-mining company Iris Energy and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Eastern District Court by the Rosen Law Firm, contends that the defendants concealed the inadequacy of the company's site in Childress County, Texas, including it being 'ill-equipped' and unable to operate the company's proprietary design. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Peggy Kuo, is 1:24-cv-07046, Williams-Israel v. Iris Energy Limited et al.
Who Got The Work
Ryan S. Stippich of Reinhart Boerner Van Deuren has entered an appearance for biopharmaceutical company Veru Inc. and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Sept. 30 in Wisconsin Western District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of June Ovadias, accuses the defendant of failing to disclose that small sample sizes and other issues rendered it unlikely that the FDA would grant Emergency Use Authorization for the cancer drug candidate sabizabulin as a potential treatment for COVID-19. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge William M. Conley, is 3:24-cv-00676, Ovadias, June v. Steiner, Mitchell et al.
Who Got The Work
Holland & Knight partners Cynthia A. Gierhart and Thomas Willcox Brooke have entered appearances for Pakistani American Political Action Committee and Rao Kamran Ali in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The action, filed Sept. 24 in District of Columbia District Court by Jackson Walker on behalf of Pakistani American Public Affairs Committee, accuses the defendants of using a mark that's confusingly similar to the plaintiff's 'Pak-Pac' marks without authorization. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Randolph D. Moss, is 1:24-cv-02727, Pakistani American Public Affairs Committee v. Pakistani American Political Action Committee et al.
Who Got The Work
Lauren M. Rosenberg and Yonatan Even of Cravath, Swaine & Moore have stepped in to represent Israel-based Oddity Tech Ltd. in a pending securities class action. The case, filed Aug. 30 in New York Southern District Court by Pomerantz LLP and Holzer & Holzer, contends that the defendant made materially misleading statements regarding the capability of Oddity's AI technology and ongoing civil litigation, resulting in the artifical inflation of the market price of Oddity's securities. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Margaret M. Garnett, is 1:24-cv-06571, Hoare v. Oddity Tech Ltd. et al.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250