A tip of the cyberhat to Kennedy Simpson for passing along to us a new medical device preemption decision in Kentucky state court, Mattingly v. Hubbard. Since it involves a PMA device (something called a “Targis System”), the basic preemption holding is, of course, dictated by Riegel. Plaintiff couldn’t prove that the device deviated from FDA requirements, and thus couldn’t squiggle through that purported loophole in preemption. Slip op. at 3. More interesting, the court held that claims that the defendant negligently trained physicians in the use of its device were preempted as “derivative claims.” “Such a claim would nonetheless impose an additional substantive requirement for a specific device. General tort duties of care directly regulate the device itself [and t]hus, such requirements are preempted.” Slip op. at 3-4.