Photo of Bexis

We’re quite happy when readers pass stuff along to us for the edification of our readership.  This latest CARE Package comes courtesy of Jeff Holmstand of Flaherty Sensabaugh – from a town known as Wheeling West Virginia.  First, he passes along a new medical device preemption decision, Bishoff v. Medtronic, Inc., C.A. No. 1:09CV171, slip op. (N.D.W. Va. Nov. 22, 2010).  Bishoff is best on TwIqbal and negligence per se, holding:

An allegation that a medical device manufacturer failed to comply with FDA regulations, without more, does not satisfy the pleading requirements of Rule 8(a). . . .  In this case, [plaintiff] alleges without any factual support that [defendant] failed to comply with the PMA process and failed to assemble [plaintiff’s] device in the manner required by the FDA’s regulations.  Without specific factual support in her complaint identifying how or why [defendant] failed to comply with the PMA process, however, [plaintiff’s] allegations of negligence per se and manufacturing defect fail to state a plausible claim under Rule 8(a).

Slip op. at 6-7.   Bishoff also dismisses express warranty (inadequately pleaded), and breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose (preempted).  Slip op. at 7-8.
The second goodie in the basket is an article, Jeff (and another attorney, Anthony Sammons of Dinsmore & Shohl (we like seeing counsel at different firms collaborate) wrote about TwIqbal for the DRI.  Here’s a copy of that for the good of the order (not the Order of the Phoenix, and not the “greater good”).  We particularly enjoyed the part (pp. 70-71) that relies on our one of our posts about the Nuvaring farce concerning MDL master complaints.  They even call us “popular.”  Geez, we feel like Galinda.