We’ve (yes, there are two of us) finally been noticed by the newspaper of record, The New York Times, in today’s article on the immediate aftermath of Riegel in other litigation involving PMA devices.
So here’s a warm welcome to the Times’ readers. Look around. And prepare for cognitive dissonance, as the positions stated in this blog are nothing like those you’ve been accustomed to reading.
Oh, and about the article, the Supreme Court didn’t think it mattered in Riegel, but that case in fact also involved a PMA supplement product – just like the Fidelis lead litigation that the article discusses. You just have to look to the Second Circuit’s opinion, Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc., 451 F.3d 104, 120, 132 (2d Cir. 2006) (pages mentioning supplement), aff’d, 2008 WL 440744 (U.S. Feb. 22, 2008), to find that out.
For those interested in the preemption track record of PMA supplement (and other PMA equivalent) devices, look here.