WARNING LETTER
EpiCare Acquisitions, LLC
MARCS-CMS 702493 —
March 21, 2025
Delivery Method:
VIA Electronic Mail
Product:
Medical Devices
Recipient:
Recipient Name
Robert E. Logue
Recipient Title
Owner
EpiCare Acquisitions, LLC
11 Princess Rd Ste C
Lawrenceville
,
NJ
08648-2319
United States
Issuing Office:
Center for Devices and Radiological Health
United States
WARNING LETTER
CMS # 702493
March 21, 2025
Dear Mr. Logue:
During an inspection of your firm located in Lawrenceville, NJ, US, on November 12, 2024, through December 13, 2024, an investigator from the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) determined that your firm manufactures the EpiCare-Zenith™ Family of Laser Systems. Under section 201(h) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the Act), 21 U.S.C. § 321(h), these products are devices because they are intended for use in the diagnosis of disease or other conditions or in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease, or to affect the structure or any function of the body. In addition, under section 531(2) of the Act, 21 U.S.C. § 360hh(2), each of these products is an electronic product because it is (A) a manufactured or assembled product which, when in operation, (i) contains or acts as part of an electronic circuit and (ii) emits (or in the absence of effective shielding or other controls would emit) electronic product radiation, or (B) a manufactured or assembled article which is intended for use as a component, part, or accessory of a product described in clause (A) and which when in operation emits (or in the absence of effective shielding or other controls would emit) such radiation.
This inspection revealed that these devices are adulterated within the meaning of section 501(h) of the Act, 21 U.S.C. § 351(h), in that the methods used in, or the facilities or controls used for, their manufacture, packing, storage, or installation are not in conformity with the current good manufacturing practice requirements of the Quality System regulation found at Title 21, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 820. We received a response on January 9, 2025 from Bruce Wade, Quality Assurance and Compliance, concerning our investigator's observations noted on the Form FDA 483 (FDA 483), List of Inspectional Observations, that was issued to your firm. We address this response below, in relation to each of the noted violations. These violations include, but are not limited to, the following:
1. Failure to establish and maintain procedures for validating the device design. Design validation shall be performed under defined operating conditions on initial production units, lots, or batches, or their equivalents. Design validation shall ensure that devices conform to defined user needs and intended uses and shall include testing of production units under actual or simulated use conditions, as required by 21 CFR 820.30(g). Specifically,
Your firm has not validated the design of the EpiCare-Zenith Family of Laser Systems per your established procedure, Product Design Validation (Document QSP-7307; Revision 00; Effective 08/13/2021). There is no evidence that a validation was performed to demonstrate that the EpiCare-Zenith™ Laser System’s (all models) hardware will consistently perform as intended when attempting specified treatment optimization parameters (wavelength, handpiece spot size, pulse duration, pulse fluence, pulse rate, and operating mode (continuous or countdown mode with number of shots to be delivered) under actual or simulated conditions, including challenging conditions such as procedures with
(b)(4)
and
(b)(4)
settings. There is also no evidence that a validation was performed under defined operating conditions (actual or simulated) on initial production batches or equivalents for each of the EpiCare-Zenith Family of Laser Devices.
Your firm provided an undated document entitled: "Clinical Literature Review" as evidence of design validation. However, this document is a compilation of clinical literature summaries related to similar alexandrite 755nm and Nd:YAG 1064 lasers. None of the clinical literature provided utilized EpiCare-Zenith lasers.
The response dated January 09, 2025 appears to be inadequate. We acknowledge that your firm initiated CAR 24-01 to address the observation. As part of this CAPA, we acknowledge that your firm intends to perform a post hoc validation by May 5, 2025. However, the list of promised validation processes does not indicate that EpiCare-Zenith devices will be utilized in this process. Please provide the results of your firm's planned corrective actions when they become available and if your firm intends to perform a validation utilizing EpiCare-Zenith lasers as part of your planned post hoc design validation processes.
2. Failure to maintain complaint files and failure to establish and maintain procedures for receiving, reviewing, and evaluating complaints by a formally designated unit as required by 21 CFR 820.198. Specifically, your Customer Complaints and Concerns procedure (QSP-8202; Revision 00; Effective 01/27/2022) is not being implemented in that:
a) Your firm is not processing complaints in a uniform and timely manner, as required by 21 CFR 820.198(a)(1). Specifically, section 4.12 of your Customer Complaints and Concerns procedure (QSP-8202; Revision 00; Effective 01/27/2022) is specific to closing complaints but does not address the timeliness of complaint closure.
Specifically, all 52 complaints received in calendar year 2024 remain open; 20 of 63 complaints received in calendar year 2023 remain open; and 71 of 72 complaints received in calendar year 2022 remain open.
b) Your firm has failed to review and evaluate complaints to determine whether an investigation is necessary. When no investigation is made, your firm failed to maintain a record that includes the reason no investigation was made and the name of the individual responsible for the decision not to investigate, as required by 21 CFR 820.198(b).
Specifically, section 4.7 of your Customer Complaints and Concerns procedure (QSP-8202; Revision 00; Effective 01/27/2022) requires complaint investigations. Your firm utilizes form QSF 8202-01 to document complaints received each calendar year. This document contains columns for "Investigation Required" and "Investigation or explanation". A review the last three years of complaint records found that these two columns were often left blank or indicate that no investigation is required without an appropriate record that includes the reason no investigation was made.
c) Your firm is not evaluating complaints to determine whether the complaint represents an event which is required to be reported to FDA under 21 CFR Part 803, Medical Device Reporting, as required by 21 CFR 820.198(d).
Specifically, section 4.6 of your Customer Complaints and Concerns procedure (QSP-8202; Revision 00; Effective 01/27/2022) requires any complaint or concern determined by the management representative or member of top management to be a reportable incident is immediately reported to the relevant regulatory authority. Your firm is not documenting the evaluation of each complaint for reportability under 21 CFR 803. Examples of complaints lacking an MDR reportability evaluation include:
i) 22-058: The complaint stated, "Heard a loud pop and the patient developed a scab." The model laser was listed as "unknown".
ii) 22-061: The complaint stated, "She feels the YAG side is running hot. She has treated 4-5 people and "burned" them. Treated at 30J/CM2, 30ms, 15mm on a Latino. She also treated someone at 20J/CM2-40ms,15mm." The model laser was listed as the dual laser "-ZTH".
The response dated January 09, 2025 appears to be inadequate. We acknowledge your firm initiated CAR 24-02 to address the observation. As part of this CARA, we acknowledge that your firm intends to conduct a comprehensive review and revision of your complaint procedure to ensure compliance along with training all associated personnel by March 3, 2025. However, your response did not indicate if a retrospective review of previously received complaints will be conducted to determine if an investigation is required or if a review for reportability under 21 CFR 803 will be performed.
3. Failure to establish and maintain procedures for implementing corrective and preventive action, as required by 21 CFR 820.100(a). Specifically, your Corrective Action procedure (QSP-8502; Revision 00; Effective 08/12/2021) is not being implemented in that:
a) Your firm failed to analyze processes, work operations, concessions, quality audit reports, quality records, service records, complaints, returned product, and other sources of quality data to identify existing and potential causes of nonconforming product, or other quality problems. Appropriate statistical methodology shall be employed where necessary to detect recurring quality problems, as required by 21 CFR 820.100(a)(1).
Specifically, section 4.2.5 of your Corrective Action procedure (QSP-8502; Revision 00; Effective 08/12/2021) states that "Corrective action may be initiated in response to analysis of data including, but not limited to: Post-market surveillance of EpiCare-Zenith products in use including customer concerns and minor complaints" and "A series of minor nonconformances identified in EpiCare-Zenith products in the field." Your firm has not analyzed complaints received since January 2022 to identify existing and potential causes of nonconforming product, or other quality problems.
Complaints were received reporting the following failures:
o  23 complaints related to power drops/loss
o  8 complaints for overheated handpiece
o  13 complaints for calibration issues.
b) Your firm failed to implement and record changes in methods and procedures needed to correct and prevent identified quality problems, as required by 21 CFR 820.100(a)(5).
Specifically, section 4.7.1 of your Corrective Action procedure (QSP-8502; Revision 00; Effective 08/12/2021) states that “Corrective actions are taken per planned arrangements as agree[sic] to by the Director of Engineering, Director of Manufacturing, and the Quality Assurance Manager.” Your firm opened Corrective Action Request (CAR) 22-01 as a result of the previous FDA inspection to ensure completeness and accuracy of past DHRs along with making changes, as necessary, to DHR forms. One of the listed corrective actions was “The Quality Manager will continuously work to improve the graphic layout of the forms to improve transmission of information to interested parties.” CAR 22-01 was closed on 04/15/2022 with two DHR documents reviewed and operator training conducted. The updated DHR forms are still in draft and have not been implemented. As listed in item 4 below, your firm failed to update DHR records to remove sections that are no longer used or outdated.
The response dated January 09, 2025 appears to be inadequate. We acknowledge that your firm plans to reassess a previous corrective action request opened from a previous FDA establishment inspection as well as review and revisions as necessary to your current Corrective Action procedure. However, your response did not address if additional corrective actions (CARs) would be initiated based on your review of quality data. Please provide our office with the results of the reassessment of previous CARs and revisions made to relevant procedures.
4. Failure to maintain device history records (DHR's). Each manufacturer shall establish and maintain procedures to ensure that DHR's for each batch, lot, or unit are maintained to demonstrate that the device is manufactured in accordance with the DMR and the requirements of this part, as required by 21 CFR 820.184.
Specifically, your firm does not have a procedure for the creation or maintenance of device history records. Additionally, per your Regulatory/QA Director the DHRs contain sections that are no longer valid or used. He stated any sections related to EpiCare-Zenith model Ta2, testing for the previous design of the water coolant pump, various test equipment no longer used, 7mm / 9 mm handpiece standoff size testing, sound level testing, and all labeling bearing the previous company logo/name. These sections are continually crossed out when creating new DHRs. No document or procedure exist which specify which sections are supposed to be performed and which are to be crossed out. The following are examples:
Device serial number
(b)(4)
o Handwritten note in section 4 -
(b)(4)
Burn in Test (755nm ALEX) of the Optical Module Final Test Report that reads "No burn in after
(b)(4)
."
o Added digital voltage of
(b)(4)
and
(b)(4)
in sections 4-
(b)(4)
Burn in Test (755nm ALEX) and 5-
(b)(4)
Burn in Test (1064nm YAG) in the Optical Module Final Test Report.
o Additional Picture and measurements of handpiece burn pattern in section 12-Spatial Profile of Handpiece of the Optical Module Final Test Report.
Device serial number
(b)(4)
:
o Section 2 Laser Output Power/Energy vs. Digital Voltage and Actual Voltage Readings (755nm ALEX), in the 1.6Hz Pulse Rate with Pulse duration=
(b)(4)
, the
(b)(4)
is crossed out and not performed.
o Section 2 Laser Output Power/Energy vs. Digital Voltage and Actual Voltage Readings (755nm ALEX), in the 1.6Hz Pulse Rate with Pulse durations of
(b)(4)
, and
(b)(4)
the
(b)(4)
is crossed out and changed to
(b)(4)
.
o Section IV-
(b)(4)
Inspection of the Optical Module Final Test Report was not reviewed and signed.
Device serial number
(b)(4)
o Section 3-Test Results of the Power Supply Test Report was not completed.
o Test process step 6 on the Electrical Checkout to "Record hardware shot count starting value shown in the Tech Mode screen for YAG was lined out. This model is a Duo, which contains both ALEX and YAG lasers.
o Section 1-Identification of Unit Under Test in the Optical Module Final Test Report is missing the PFN S/N#.
o Section 2 Laser Output Power/Energy vs. Digital Voltage and Actual Voltage Readings (755nm ALEX), in the 1.6Hz Pulse Rate with Pulse durations of
(b)(4)
, and
(b)(4)
, the
(b)(4)
is crossed out and changed to
(b)(4)
.
o Section 3 Laser Output Power/Energy vs. Digital Voltage and Actual Voltage Readings (1064nm YAG), in the 1.6Hz Pulse Rate with Pulse duration
(b)(4)
was added.
o Section 3 Laser Output Power/Energy vs. Digital Voltage and Actual Voltage Readings (1064nm YAG), in the 1.6Hz Pulse Rate with Pulse durations of
(b)(4)
and
(b)(4)
, the
(b)(4)
was changed to
(b)(4)
.
o Section 3 Laser Output Power/Energy vs. Digital Voltage and Actual Voltage Readings (1064nm YAG), in the 1 Hz Pulse Rate with Pulse duration=
(b)(4)
, the
(b)(4)
was changed to
(b)(4)
.
o Section 4-
(b)(4)
Test (755nm ALEX),
(b)(4)
was added to the test and the
(b)(4)
occurrences of
(b)(4)
were changed to
(b)(4)
.
o Section 5-
(b)(4)
Test (1064nm YAG),
(b)(4)
was added to the test and the
(b)(4)
occurrences of
(b)(4)
were changed to
(b)(4)
.
The response dated January 09, 2025 appears to be inadequate. Your response promises to review and revise all DHR forms by March 3, 2025. However, your response does not address if your firm plans to establish a DHR procedure. In your response, provide the revised DHRs and DHR procedure or a justification for not creating one.
5. Failure to maintain device master records (DMR's), as required by 21 CFR 820.181. Each manufacturer shall ensure that each DMR is prepared and approved in accordance with 820.40. The DMR for each type of device shall include, or refer to the location of, the following information:
a) Device specifications including appropriate drawings, composition, formulation, component specifications, and software specifications;
b) Production process specifications including the appropriate equipment specifications, production methods, production procedures, and production environment specifications;
c) Quality assurance procedures and specifications including acceptance criteria and the quality assurance equipment to be used;
d) Packaging and labeling specifications, including methods and processes used; and
e) Installation, maintenance, and servicing procedures and methods.
Specifically, the device master record for your firm's EpiCare-Zenith Laser System (all models) does not contain appropriate processes and specifications for your current line of laser systems. The DMR consists of a blank device history record with sections that are no longer valid or used. These include any sections related to EpiCare-Zenith model Ta2, testing for the previous design of the
(b)(4)
pump, various test equipment no longer used,
(b)(4)
standoff size testing, sound level testing, and all labeling bearing the previous company logo/name.
We reviewed your January 09, 2025 response and the adequacy cannot be determined. Your response promises to perform a post hoc device validation to confirm or revise all manufacturing specification for manufactured devices. Additionally, your response promises to develop a separate DMR for each family of laser product by July 7, 2025. In your response, please provide any revisions made to your manufacturing specifications and examples of each device DMR.
6. Failure to establish procedures for identifying training needs and ensure that all personnel are trained to adequately perform their assigned responsibilities, as required by 21 CFR 820.25(b).
Specifically, section 4.4.9 of your Human Resources: Training, Awareness, and Competence procedure (QSP-6200; Revision 00; Effective 03/05/2022) requires documentation of training outcomes utilizing QSF 6200-04 Training Record or documented by an Internal Audit of the trainee performing the task independent of instruction or guidance. However, during the inspection you were unable to provide documentation of any training completed by employees at your firm.
We reviewed your January 09, 2025 response and the adequacy cannot be determined. Your response promises to develop and effectively deliver training to be given
(b)(4)
for existing employees and upon hiring of new employees by February 2, 2025. In your response, please provide evidence that training was conducted.
Failure to Have Compliant Electronic Product Radiation Control (EPRC) Labeling
Our inspection also revealed that your firm failed to comply with labeling requirements applicable to electronic products. Section 538(a)(1) of the FD&C Act, 21 U.S.C. 360oo(a)(1), prohibits manufacturers from introducing, or delivering for introduction, into commerce, or importing into the United States, any electronic product which does not comply with an applicable standard prescribed pursuant to section 534 of the FD&C Act, 21 U.S.C. 360kk.
21 CFR 1010.3(a)(2)(ii)—which is an applicable standard prescribed pursuant to section 534 of the Act, among other provisions—requires that the month and year of manufacture be provided clearly and legibly, without abbreviation, and with the year shown as a four-digit number, in the format “Manufactured: (Insert Month and Year of Manufacture.).”. Alternatively, a manufacturer may utilize a manufacturing symbol and date format that conforms with an applicable FDA recognized consensus standard.
The identification label used on the EpiCare-Zenith laser model ZTH with serial number
(b)(4)
and located on the rear lower panel, does not accord with 21 CFR 1010.3(a)(2)(ii) because it does not provide the month of manufacture without abbreviation and in the format “Manufactured: (Insert Month and Year of Manufacture.),” nor does it utilize a manufacturing symbol and date format that conforms with an applicable FDA recognized consensus standard. Instead, it reads "2024-11" as an abbreviation for November 2024.
The response dated January 09, 2025 appears to be inadequate. We acknowledge that your firm initiated CAR 24-10 to address the observation. As part of this CAR, we acknowledge that your firm intends to confirm that the labeling for your firm's medical lasers conforms with the requirements of 21 CFR 801. However, according to 21 CFR 801.18(b)(2), if the device is an electronic product to which a standard is applicable under 21 CFR Chapter I, subchapter J, the date of manufacture shall be presented as required by 21 CFR 1010.3(a)(2)(ii). In your response, please provide examples of any revisions made to the identification labels for our review.
Failure to Have Compliant Medical Device Reporting (MDR) Procedures
Our inspection also revealed that your firm has failed to develop, maintain, and implement written MDR procedures, as required by 21 CFR 803.17.
For example: during the inspection, your firm presented a procedure titled "Medical Device Records and Product Recalls", QSP-8303, Rev. 00, dated 08/13/2021, as its guideline for MDR reporting. After reviewing the procedure, the following deficiencies were noted:
1. The procedure does not establish internal systems that provide for timely and effective identification, communication, and evaluation of events that may be subject to MDR requirements, as required by 21 CFR 803.17(a)(1).
a) The procedure omits definitions of the terms "become aware" and "serious injury" from 21 CFR Part 803.3, as well as the definition of "reasonably suggests" found in 803.20(c)(1). The exclusion of the definitions for these terms from the procedure may lead your firm to make an incorrect reportability decision when evaluating a complaint that may meet the criteria for reporting under 21 CFR 803.50(a).
b) The procedure, as written, combines language from the requirements of other regulatory or competent authorities with the requirements in 21 CFR Part 803 in a manner that will result in incomplete, inadequate, or even non-reporting of adverse events that meet the reportability requirements under 21 CFR Part 803. For example, Section 3.1 interchangeably uses the same reporting determination criteria for both U.S. MDR reporting and the non-U.S. reporting processes, which could lead to confusion and noncompliance.
2. The procedure does not establish internal systems that provide for timely transmission of complete medical device reports, as required by 21 CFR 803.17(a)(3). Specifically, your procedure does not include:
a) Instructions for how to obtain and complete the FDA 3500A form.
b) A process for submitting initial and supplement or follow-up reports to FDA in an electronic format that FDA can process, review and archive in accordance with 21 CFR 803.12(a).
c) Although the procedure references supplement or follow-up report, it does not specify the requirement to submit these reports within 30 calendar days of the day that your firm receives applicable information, as required by 21 CFR 803.56.
d) How your firm will ensure that all information reasonably known to you is submitted for each event. Specifically, which sections of the Form 3500A will need to be completed to include all information found in your firm's possession and any information that becomes available as a result of a reasonable follow-up within your firm.
3. The procedure does not describe how your firm will address documentation and record-keeping requirements, as required by 21 CFR 803.17(b), including:
a) Documentation of adverse event related information maintained as MDR event files.
b) Information that was evaluated to determine if an event was reportable.
c) Documentation of the deliberations and decision-making processes used to determine if a device-related death, serious injury, or malfunction was or was not reportable, as required under 21 CFR 803.18(b)(1)(i).
A device is deemed to be misbranded under section 502(t)(2) of the Act, 21 U.S.C. § 352(t)(2), if there was a failure or refusal to furnish any material or information required by or under section 519 of the Act, 21 U.S.C. § 360i, which includes adverse event reports required under 21 CFR Part 803, respecting the device.
In response to this letter, please provide any completed actions taken by your firm to address this item or your planned actions and the timeframe for when these actions will be completed.
Failure to Have Compliant Labeling
The inspection revealed that the EpiCare-Zenith Laser System devices are misbranded within the meaning of section 502(c) of the Act, 21 U.S.C. § 352(c), because a word, statement, or other information required by or under authority of section 519 of the Act, 21 U.S.C. § 360i, to appear on the label or labeling of the devices was not prominently placed thereon with such conspicuousness (as compared with other words, statements, designs, or devices, in the labeling) and in such terms as to render it likely to be read and understood by the ordinary individual under customary conditions of purchase and use. In particular, 21 CFR 801.20(a) - which was promulgated under authority of section 519 of the Act, among other provisions - requires, with exceptions not relevant here, that the label and device package of every medical device bear a unique device identifier (UDI) that meets the requirements of 21 CFR Part 801, subpart B, and 21 CFR Part 830. The labels of the EpiCare-Zenith Laser System devices do not bear such a UDI.
Specifically, the labels for the EpiCare-Zenith Laser System do not include a device identifier within the meaning of 21 CFR 801.3 or 830.3, and there is no UDI presented in easily readable plain-text on the label of the EpiCare-Zenith Laser System (see 21 CFR 801.40(a)(1)), and there is no UDI presented in machine-readable form that uses automatic identification and data capture (AIDC) technology on the label of EpiCare-Zenith Laser System (see 21 CFR 801.40(a)(2)).
The response dated January 09, 2025 appears to be inadequate. Your firm promised to obtain UDIs for the EpiCare-Zenith Family of Laser Devices and indicated that you have made initial contact with GS1 for obtaining UDIs for devices. However, you have not provided evidence of obtaining UDIs from GS1, any revisions to device labels to include valid UDIs, or evidence of implementation of those revised device labels.
Failure to Submit Required Information to GUDID
In addition, the EpiCare-Zenith Laser System devices are misbranded within the meaning of section 502(t)(2) of the Act, 21 U.S.C. § 352(t)(2), in that there was a failure or refusal to furnish any material or information required by or under section 519 of the Act, 21 U.S.C. § 360i, respecting these devices. In particular, 21 CFR 830.300(a) and 830.320(b) - both of which were promulgated under section 519 of the Act, among other provisions - require that the labeler of a device submit electronically to FDA's Global Unique Device Identification Database (GUDID) the information required by 21 CFR Part 830, subpart E, for each version or model required to bear a UDI. FDA has determined that your firm causes a label to be applied to a device with the intent that the device will be commercially distributed without any subsequent replacement or modification of the label. EpiCare Acquisitions, LLC. is therefore a "labeler" within the meaning of 21 CFR 830.3 and has not submitted to GUDID any information required by 21 CFR Part 830, subpart E, respecting these devices.
The failure or refusal to furnish any notification or other material or information required by or under section 519 of the Act, 21 U.S.C. § 360i, also constitutes a prohibited act under section 301(q)(1)(B) of the Act, 21 U.S.C. § 331(q)(1)(B).
The response dated January 09, 2025 appears to be inadequate. Your firm promised to register with GUDID and make required entries for the EpiCare-Zenith Family of Laser Devices. However, there are no entries in GUDID for Epicare Acquisitions, LLC. or for devices with the trade names Epicare-Zenith Laser System or any other powered laser surgical instrument associated with Epicare Acquisitions, LLC.
Your firm should take prompt action to correct the violations addressed in this letter. Failure to adequately address this matter may result in regulatory action being initiated by the FDA without further notice. These actions include, but are not limited to, seizure, injunction, and civil money penalties.
Other federal agencies may take your compliance with the FD&C Act and its implementing regulations into account when considering the award of federal contracts. Additionally, should FDA determine that you have Quality System regulation violations that are reasonably related to premarket approval applications for Class III devices, such devices will not be approved until the violations have been addressed. Should FDA determine that your devices or facilities do not meet the requirements of the Act, requests for Certificates to Foreign Governments (CFG) may not be granted.
Please notify this office in writing, within fifteen business days from the date you receive this letter, of the specific steps your firm has taken to correct the noted violations, as well as an explanation of how your firm plans to prevent these violations, or similar violations, from occurring again. Include documentation of the corrections and/or corrective actions (which should address systemic problems) that your firm has taken. If your firm's planned corrections and/or corrective actions will occur over time, please include a timetable for implementation of those activities. If corrections and/or corrective actions cannot be completed within fifteen business days, state the reason for the delay and the time within which these activities will be completed. Your firm's response should be comprehensive and address all violations included in this Warning Letter. If you believe that your products are not in violation of the FD&C Act, include your reasoning and any supporting information for our consideration as part of your response.
Your firm’s response should be sent via email to Establishment Assessment Team 1 Assistant Director, Gina Brackett, at CDRHEnforcement@fda.hhs.gov. Please include in the subject line, “CMS Case # 702493” when replying. If you have any questions about the contents of this letter, please contact: Sean Moynihan, Compliance Officer at sean.moynihan@fda.hhs.gov.
Finally, you should know that this letter is not intended to be an all-inclusive list of the violations at your firm's facility or associated with your firm’s devices and electronic products. It is your firm's responsibility to ensure compliance with applicable laws and regulations administered by FDA. The specific violations noted in this letter and in the Inspectional Observations, FDA 483, issued at the close of the inspection may be symptomatic of serious problems in your firm's manufacturing and quality management systems. Your firm should investigate and determine the causes of the violations and take prompt actions to correct the violations and bring the products into compliance.
Sincerely,
/S/
RDML Sean Boyd, M.P.H., USPHS
Director
Office of Regulatory Programs
Office of Product Evaluation and Quality
Center for Devices and Radiological Health
Cc: Islam Hafez, Owner, Lasetech LLC
Bruce Wade, Regulatory and QA Director
Content current as of:
04/08/2025
Regulated Product(s)
Medical Devices