563 (7th Cir. 1993) (“[E]ven when literature on a drug's use is sent in a different package that the drug itself, the literature may still be a label.’”)* Walls v. Armour Pharmaceutical Co., 832 F.Supp. 1467, 1482-83 (M.D.Fla.1993), aff'd, 53 F.3d 1184 (11th Cir.1995)) (in an action against a pharmaceutical company in part for the negligent failure to warn of the risk of HIV transmittal through use of blood plasma, recognized that for the purposes of Section 601.12 "labeling is broadly defined [by Section 321(m)] and includes not only package inserts, but also separate communications concerning the drug, such as ‘Dear Doctor' letters sent by drug manufacturers to physicians____”) (each case citing Kordel v. United States, 335 U.S. 345, 350, 69 S.Ct. 106, 110, 93 L.Ed. 52, 57 (1948) (<HOLDING>)). 19 See, e.g., Martello v. Ciba Vision Corp.,
holding no physical attachment one to the other is necessaryf it is the textual relationship that is significant holding that for material accompanying a device no physical attachment is necessary it is the textual relationship that is significant holding that it is not holding that a substantive due process challenge is unavailable where there is an explicit textual source of constitutional protection holding that when an agency is charged with administering a statute part of the authority it receives is the power to give reasonable content to the statutes textual ambiguities