Parallel Violation Claims

(Note that this post comes from the Cozen O’Connor side of the blog.)

Good morning. Do you have your coffee? If so, start sipping it. You will need it. Because this morning we’re going to discuss leads for implantable cardiac defibrillators (“ICD”), Riata Leads to be precise. Now, while this may not be the most thrilling subject, you have to admit that Riata Leads is a solid name. It sounds like something important, like rock-solid leads for selling real estate, the type of game-changing leads that Shelly “the Machine” Levene would plot to steal from his boss’s office. Like the Glengarry leads. But these are not the Glengarry leads. They truly are ICD leads, ones that detect a patient’s abnormal heartbeat and deliver an electric shock to restore a normal heartbeat. So take another sip of your coffee.

Plaintiff Richard Connelly alleges that in 2003 his doctors surgically connected Riata Leads to his heart but that, in 2010, the leads improperly shocked him 16 to 20 times while he slept, causing damage to his heart and requiring surgery to replace them. Connelly v. St. Jude Med., Inc., 2018 WL 732734, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 6, 2018). Plaintiff hired a lawyer and sued, claiming that St. Jude, the manufacturer, failed to file adverse event reports about the Riata Leads and that, if it had, plaintiff’s doctor would not have implanted them or, in the least, would have removed them after he did implant them. Id. at *1-2.

As you can probably tell already, this is another parallel violation claim. So take another sip. Plaintiffs file a lot of these claims. We write about them often. And they often fail, for many reasons. This one failed because plaintiff didn’t adequately allege causation. In particular, his complaint didn’t connect the defendant’s alleged failure to file adverse event reports about the Riata Leads to his doctor’s decision to implant them or leave them in.

In this respect, the allegations had a number of problems. They had a timing problem. The allegations did not plausibly suggest that the defendants failed to file adverse reports about the Riata Leads before they were implanted in plaintiff, which happened in 2003. Id. at 3. The allegations had regulatory problems. While the FDA issued a 483 Report covering the years 2002 to 2009 noting that the defendant failed to file adverse event reports on Riata Leads, plaintiff did not identify a single failure to file a report before the Riata Leads were implanted in him in 2003. Id. The allegations had defect identification problems. The FDA inspection that resulted in the 483 Report focused on malfunctions in the Riata Leads due to perforation, but the defect alleged by plaintiff had to do with improper abrasion. Id. OK, take one last sip of coffee. We’re almost there.

Finally, plaintiff claimed that defendant’s failed to file adverse event reports about Riata Leads after they were implanted in him, resulting in his doctor not removing them. This theory failed as a matter of California law, which does not allow such claims:

[T]o the extent Connelly’s claim is premised on a theory that St. Jude had a post-distribution (i.e., post-implantation) duty to warn, this fails as a matter of law. Under California law, a defendant may be held strictly liable for a failure to warn only if “the defendant did not adequately warn of a particular risk that was known or knowable…at the time of manufacture and distribution.” Anderson v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 810 P.2d 549, 558 (Cal. 1991).

Id. at 4.

Having already dismissed plaintiff’s complaint once before, this time the Court dismissed it with prejudice.

Ok, all done. Now “Put . . . that . . . coffee . . . down! (I’m here from downtown. . . . I’m here from Mitch and Murray.)

Several years ago, in a post entitled “Negligence Per Se Trivia,” we included the following:

In Kentucky, negligence per se has been codified, and claims based on federal (but not state) statutes or regulations (like the FDCA) are prohibited.  St. Luke Hospital, Inc. v. Straub, 354 S.W.3d 529, 534 & n.14 (Ky. 2011); T & M Jewelry, Inc. v. Hicks, 189 S.W.3d 526, 530 (Ky. 2006).

Our only other encounter with Kentucky FDCA-based negligence per se claims involved a misbegotten case that held such a claim wasn’t preempted, but didn’t address the claim’s viability under state law.  See Steiden v. Genzyme BioSurgery, 2012 WL 2923225 (W.D. Ky. July 18, 2012)

We thought we’d look at this issue more closely.  Here is what’s going on.  The earlier of these cases, T & M, involved a peculiar state statute that “codifies the doctrine of negligence per se in Kentucky.”  189 S.W.3d at 530.  That statute provides:

A person injured by the violation of any statute may recover from the offender such damages as he sustained by reason of the violation, although a penalty or forfeiture is imposed for such violation.

Ky. Rev. Stat. §446.070.  In determining the scope of this statute, T & M construed it in pari materia (that’s legal Latin for “in conjunction with other provisions about the same subject”) with the rest of that chapter, pointing out that “numerous provisions in KRS Chapter 446 refer to ‘the statute laws of this state,’ and also repeatedly refer to acts or intent of ‘the General Assembly.’”  189 S.W.3d at 530 (footnotes containing citations omitted).  Against that legislative background, the Kentucky Supreme Court concluded that plaintiffs claiming “injur[y] by the violation of any statute” in Kentucky were limited to asserting violations of Kentucky – not federal (or other state) – statutes:

Thus “any statute” in KRS 446.070 has been held to be limited to Kentucky statutes and not to federal statutes or local ordinances.  The Kentucky General Assembly did not intend for KRS 446.070 to embrace the whole of federal laws and the laws of other states and thereby confer a private civil remedy for such a vast array of violations.

189 S.W.3d at 530 (footnotes containing citations omitted).

That limitation has been the law of Kentucky ever since. In St. Luke Hospital, Inc. v. Straub, 354 S.W.3d 529 (Ky. 2011), a case involving (state) constitutional civil rights litigation, the Kentucky high court reiterated this holding while rejecting the plaintiff’s state-law analogy to 42 U.S.C. §1983:

Precedent acknowledges some restrictions on the applicability of KRS 446.070.  The “any statute” language used applies to Kentucky statutes. Our courts have considered the application of the statute to federal laws and regulations. . . .   Violations of federal laws and regulations . . . do not create a cause of action based on KRS 446.070.

354 S.W.3d at 534 & nn.10, 14 (citing T & M).  Other Kentucky courts continue to follow these holdings that plaintiffs claiming injuries from statutory/regulatory violations under Kentucky law cannot assert violations of federal enactments.  Harrison Memorial Hospital, Inc. v. Wellcare Health Insurance Co., 509 S.W.3d 69, 75 (Ky. App. 2016) (no negligence per se or other private recovery for alleged Medicaid reimbursement violations), review denied (Ky. Feb. 9, 2017); Brock v. Bennett, 2015 WL 136330, at *4 (Ky. App. Jan. 9, 2015) (no negligence per se based on alleged violation of Federal Building Code), review denied (Ky. Sept. 16, 2015); Jackson v. JB Hunt Transportation, Inc., 384 S.W.3d 177, 182-83 (Ky. App. 2012), review denied (Ky. Dec. 12, 2012) (no negligence per se based on alleged violation of federal trucking regulations); Gordon v. Turner, 2016 WL 3636073, at *7-8 (E.D. Ky. June 29, 2016) (same as Jackson); Gonzalez v. City of Owensboro, 2015 WL 4594505, at *8 (W.D. Ky. July 30, 2015) (no negligence per se based on alleged violation of National Electrical Code); Wise v. Pine Tree Villa, LLC, 2015 WL 1611804, at *3 (W.D. Ky. April 10, 2015) (no negligence per se based on alleged violation of federal regulations governing certification of long-term care facilities); Halcomb v. Britthaven, Inc., 2015 WL 998560, at *4 (E.D. Ky. March 5, 2015) (same as Wise); Vanhook v. Somerset Health Facilities, LP, 67 F. Supp.3d 810, 817-18 (E.D. Ky. 2014) (no negligence per se based on alleged violation of federal Social Security regulations); Kelter v. Wasp, Inc., 2014 WL 4639914, at *8 (W.D. Ky. Sept. 16, 2014) (no negligence per se based on alleged violation of federal OSHA regulations); McCarty v. Covol Fuels No. 2, LLC, 978 F. Supp.2d 799, 808-09 (W.D. Ky. 2013) (no negligence per se based on alleged violation of federal mine safety regulations); Pace v. Medco Franklin RE, LLC, 2013 WL 3233469, at *2 (W.D. Ky. June 25, 2013) (same as Wise); Cummins v. BIC USA, Inc., 2011 WL 1399768, at *3 (W.D. Ky. April 13, 2011) (no negligence per se based on alleged violation of federal childproofing regulation).

Notably in Young v. Carran, 289 S.W.3d 586 (Ky. App. 2008), a plaintiff seeking to recover for purported HIPAA violations, after losing under Ky. Rev. Stat. §446.070, tried to maintain the same claim under some sort of residual “common law” negligence per se theory that supposedly survived the legislature’s action.  That gossamer-thin attempted distinction also failed, with a unanimous court holding:

[Plaintiff] next contends that [HIPAA regulations] impose a duty of care on Appellees allowing for a Kentucky “common law” negligence per se claim.  [plaintiff’s] reliance upon T & M . . . in support of her argument is misplaced.  In that case, the Supreme Court of Kentucky used provisions of [a] federal [statute] to define a duty of care for purposes of a common law negligence action − not a KRS 446.070 negligence per se claim.  Indeed, the Court expressly refused to apply the act in a negligence per se context.  Therefore, her claim must be rejected.

Id. at 589 (citations omitted).  There is thus no “lingering” common law out there.  Sadler v. Advanced Bionics, Inc., 929 F. Supp.2d 670, 681 n.10 (W.D. Ky. 2013).

In drug/medical device litigation, Kentucky courts that have addressed the issue have held that Ky. Rev. Stat. §446.070 bars all negligence per se claims asserting violations of the FDCA or FDA regulations.  Waltenburg v. St. Jude Medical, Inc., 33 F. Supp.3d 818, 837 (W.D. Ky. 2014); Sadler, 929 F. Supp.2d at 681.

We think that these cases, while correctly decided, do not do §446.070 justice. The statute isn’t limited to negligence per se, indeed the statute is not targeted against any particular cause of action.  Rather, the legislature cast its statutory net much more broadly − the universe of claims covered by §446.070 extends to any “person injured by the violation of any statute.”  That language reaches any supposed “parallel” claim, no matter how captioned.  The recent decision, Moore v. Zydus Pharmaceuticals (USA), Inc., ___ F. Supp.3d ___, 2017 WL 4365162 (E.D. Ky. Sept. 29, 2017), involving generic drugs, rather than medical devices, thus took a step in the right direction in holding that §446.070 precluded any “negligence” claim, not merely one denominated “negligence per se.”

The Kentucky Supreme Court’s holding in T & M . . . offers binding and unequivocal precedent concerning the scope of KRS 446.070 and demonstrates that [plaintiff] does not have a state based right to sue for negligence in this matter.

Id. at *7.  We think the same thing could be said for any “parallel” claim, whether purporting to sound in strict liability, warranty, or any other theory.  As long as the claim is brought by a “person injured by the violation of any statute” – which parallel claims, by their nature, must be – then, quite apart from preemption, they may not be brought under Ky. Rev. Stat. §446.070.  We also note that the same result could also be reached under implied preemption under Buckman Co. v. Plaintiffs Legal Committee, 531 U.S. 341 (2001), since in §446.070 the Kentucky legislature abolished any “parallel” state-law action.

This post is from the non-Reed Smith side of the blog.

In our post earlier this week “No Causation, No ‘Parallel Claim’” we examined the enormous causation hurdle plaintiffs face in trying to prove a Stengel or Hughes type failure to warn claim in those jurisdictions where such a claim has been found not to be preempted. In that post, we commented that we “would have preferred an order finding the failure-to-warn claims preempted.” Well today, we bring you two that do just that. The first a complete preemption win, the other only a partial, but we’ll start with the good news.

Both Golden v. Brown, Case # 17CV30568, slip op. (Colo. Dist. Ct. Sep. 24, 2017) and Norabuena v. Medtronic, Inc., 2017 Ill. App. LEXIS 593 (Ill. App. Sep. 20, 2017) refused to recognize a failure to warn claim premised on a failure to report adverse events to the FDA – a Stengel claim if you’re in the Ninth Circuit and a Hughes claim if you’re in the Fifth. Now neither Colorado nor Illinois is in those circuits, but we’d like to think that regardless these state courts would have reached the same conclusion they did – neither Colorado nor Illinois law recognizes a claim for failure to warn the FDA. So, plaintiff can allege defendant violated a federal regulation by failing provide information to the FDA – but it isn’t “parallel” to any state law claim because there is no such state law claim. The Illinois appellate court summed it up nicely:

[A]lthough plaintiffs have identified a federal requirement that their complaint alleges Medtronic violated, there is no Illinois requirement that parallels it. Plaintiffs asserted claims for failure to warn. Although Illinois recognizes that a manufacturer may satisfy its duty to warn by conveying information to third-party learned intermediaries, this is not synonymous with an affirmative duty to warn a federal regulatory body. The learned intermediary doctrine states that a manufacturer has a duty to warn prescribing physicians of a drug’s known dangerous propensities” under the understanding that those physicians will use their expert knowledge in adequately warning the patient. We cannot find that this duty is parallel to the federal requirement.

Norabuena, 2017 Ill. App. LEXIS 593 at **14. The Colorado court not only found that allegations of failure to report adverse events to the FDA don’t state a parallel claim, but also concluded that Stengel and Hughes “cannot be reconciled with 21 U.S.C. §360k(a) as interpreted in Riegel or 21 U.S.C. §337(a) as interpreted in Buckman.” Golden, slip op. at 3. In other words, failure to warn a learned intermediary is different from and in addition to federal requirements regarding reporting of adverse events and a claim for failure to provide information to the FDA is an improper attempt at private enforcement of the FDCA. Just what we’ve been saying since these two awful decisions came down.

Both decisions have a little more to discuss.

In Golden, plaintiff also attempted to base a parallel claim on alleged violations of Current Good Manufacturing Processes (“CGMPs”). Noting that it was joining the majority of courts to have considered the issue, the court ruled that the CGMPs are too “vague” and “open-ended” to serve as a basis for a parallel claim. Id. at 2. The court also found plaintiff’s breach of implied warranty of merchantability claim preempted as essentially an allegation that the device was not safe and effective which would directly contradict the FDA’s PMA decision that “there is a reasonable assurance of . . . safety and effectiveness” and therefore expressly preempted. Id. at 3. And finally, the court found plaintiff’s claims impliedly preempted because plaintiff failed to explain “how Defendant’s conduct violated state law duties absent the FDCA.” Id. Simply stating that her claims were premised on Colorado common law was insufficient – “true merely in title, not substance.” Id. Instead, plaintiff’s claim exist solely under the FDCA which is not allowed.

The Golden case also suffered from some pleadings defects, such as failure to allege facts to support either a defect or causation. Id. at 2. But even if those pleading deficiencies could be cured, none of plaintiff’s claims survived preemption, so the case was dismissed in its entirety.

Switching gears to Illinois – unfortunately the court ruled that one of the bases for plaintiff’s failure to warn claim was not preempted. The FDCA contains regulations against device misbranding, which includes advertising that is false and misleading. Norabuena, 2017 Ill. App. LEXIS 593 at **15. Plaintiff alleged that defendant’s advertising was false and misleading in that it concealed known risks of using the device in an off-label manner. Id. at **16. In reaching its conclusion, the court distinguished plaintiff’s claim as not an attack on the device’s label which would be preempted as having been specifically approved by the FDA during the PMA process. But rather, plaintiff was challenging allegedly deceptive marketing practices post pre-market approval. Id. at **17. But that is a distinction without a difference where plaintiff’s allegation is that in its advertising defendant should have included a warning different from or in addition to the warning the FDA approved. The FDA-approved warning is what must accompany product advertising. Think about what the court is saying – if the warning is in the product label it must adhere to the FDA-approved language. If the warning accompanies an advertisement for the product it does not. We do not believe that is something the FDA would allow. While we can understand how a court can find that a false statement made in product promotion may be both a violation of state law and FDCA misbranding regulations, where that falsity is alleged to be a failure to include a warning not approved by the FDA, we respectfully disagree.

But, all is not lost in Norabuena. The appellate court found that plaintiff’s claims were properly dismissed on another ground – failure to plead causation. The complaint apparently was replete with allegations of “omitted” risks, “[h]owever, there are no specific factual allegations in the complaint asserting that [plaintiff’s] surgeon encountered or relied on any of the asserted promotional marketing.” Id. at **21. If a tree falls in the woods. . . . It’s not enough to plead the act or omission, the complaint was also allege facts supporting proximate cause. This pleading deficiency wasn’t enough for a dismissal with prejudice, so the case is heading back to the trial court and plaintiff will have to re-plead her remaining failure to warn claim.

Put a New Yorker and a Californian in a room together and the debate will begin almost immediately. Hollywood v. Broadway. Atlantic v. Pacific. Dodgers v. Yankees or Giants v. Forty-Niners. Shake Shack v. In-N-Out (or is Five Guys overtaking both?). And more generally speaking that east coast/west coast divide extends beyond those two urban hubs. Laid back v. fast-paced lifestyle. Deserts v. low country. Golden Gate v. Sunshine Skyway. Disneyland v. Disney World. And let’s not forget – the west coast may be synonymous with California sunshine, but the east coast gives you actual seasons.

While failure to report adverse event claims are not limited to the west coast, we think of them as Stengel claims. In case you need reminding, we believe that the Ninth Circuit made a historic error in Stengel v. Medtronic Inc., 704 F.3d 1224 (9th Cir., 2013) (en banc), when it equated routine product liability inadequate warning claims with indirect third-party warning claims where the third party is a governmental agency – that is, the FDA. Since Stengel is a Ninth Circuit case and the Ninth Circuit includes the entire west coast – we’re going to saddle the west coast with that one. And we’re going to praise an east coast court for saying, thanks but no thanks.

We’ve talked about Burrell v. Bayer Corporation before when earlier this year the court ruled that allegations of parallel claims in plaintiff’s complaint conferred federal question jurisdiction. After winning on removal, the defendants next moved to dismiss the entire case on preemption. Round 2 goes to defendants as well.

The product at issue is the Essure birth control medical device. It is a pre-market approved device so preemption shouldn’t be a big surprise. Burrell v. Bayer Corp., 2017 WL 1955333, *1 (W.D.N.C. May 10, 2017). As is true of the vast majority of drug and medical device products cases, failure to warn is at the heart of the case. But as we already know, traditional failure to warn claims are preempted in PMA device cases. So, plaintiffs pushed for a Stengel-claim. Plaintiff’s argument is failure to warn premised on failure to provide adverse event reports to the FDA is a non-preempted parallel claim. Unpersuaded by the reasoning of that west coast court, Burrell found that the requirement to report adverse events exists under the FDCA rather than state law and therefore, plaintiff’s failure to warn claim is “being brought because the [] defendants allegedly failed to meet these reporting requirements.” Burrell, at *5 (emphasis added). And where a claim is being brought solely based on a violation of the FDCA – that’s Buckman implied preemption. Traditional failure to warn is expressly preempted, failure to report to the FDA is impliedly preempted. Score one for the east coast for getting this.

But the court didn’t stop there. Analyzing the claim under state law, it still didn’t hold up because plaintiff’s allegations didn’t support a finding of causation. This is where most Stengel claims. By the time the device was implanted in plaintiff, the FDA had received and analyzed the adverse event reports and the subsequent warning did not contain any new information. Id. at *5 (although a black box warning was required, that was a new “type” of warning, the substance of the warning was unchanged). So there was no causal nexus between the alleged failure to report and plaintiff’s injury.

None of plaintiff’s remaining claims fared any better. On failure to train, the claim only survives preemption if premised on allegations that defendant failed to train in accordance with federal requirements. Plaintiff made no such allegations. Id. at *6. Moreover, plaintiff again failed to allege any facts to support a causal connection between the failure to train and her injury. Id. Plaintiff’s negligent manufacturing claim suffered the same fate – no alleged violation of federal requirements and no facts to support causation. Id. Plaintiff’s design defect claim was dismissed as expressly preempted. As a PMA device, the “FDA made its determination of this products safety and effectiveness for its given use. As the plaintiff cannot allege that [defendant] departed from its FDA-approved design of this product, these design defect claims are preempted.” Id. at *7. Even if not preempted, North Carolina does not recognize strict liability claims for products liability. Id.

            Moving on to warranty claims, plaintiff alleged that defendant expressly warranted the product was safe. To find that defendant breached that warranty, a jury would have to conclude that the product was unsafe – which is contrary to the FDA’s conclusion in its pre-market approval that the device was in fact safe and effective. So, express warranty is expressly preempted. Id. Since plaintiff’s implied warranty claim also turned on whether the product was reasonably safe, it too was expressly preempted. “The FDA, under the FDCA and the MDA, has the express authority to make such determinations as to the safety and effectiveness of Class III medical devices.” Id.

Plaintiff’s final claims against the manufacturer were for fraud and unfair trade practices. The court first noted that most of the allegations on these claims were just a re-packaging of the allegations pleaded with plaintiff’s other claims. Since the allege misrepresentations were largely “indistinguishable from FDA-approved labeling statements” – they too were preempted. Id. at *8.

Nice job North Carolina. In the east coast v. west coast debate, we’ll side with an anti-Stengel jurisdiction every time.

This post originates from the non-Reed Smith side of the blog.

A federal judge in Texas recently ruled that Texas law does not allow a claim for negligence per se based solely on alleged violations of the FDCA or FDA regulations. Monk v. Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72477, *21-23 (W.D. Tex May 11, 2017). That seems pretty straightforward to us. Plaintiffs typically use negligence per se to try to privately enforce a provision of the FDCA, i.e., by using an alleged violation of a safety-related provision of the FDCA as the basis for their state law claim.  State law does not always allow this, but even when it does, such a claim should not withstand implied preemption under Buckman.  That is because Buckman and section 337(a) of the FDCA make it clear that litigants cannot privately enforce the FDCA, and a negligence per se claim based on a purported violation of the FDCA is an unveiled attempt to accomplish exactly that. Monk doesn’t say all of that explicitly, but it relies on cases that do. That’s good enough for us.

Plaintiff based her negligence per se claim on the defendants’ alleged failure to provide medication guides for distribution with amiodarone prescriptions.  The basis for the claim was the federal regulation requiring manufacturers of some prescription drugs to make medication guides available either by providing a sufficient number of guides to distributors and dispensers or by providing the means to produce guides in sufficient numbers. Id. at *3, *6 (citing 21 C.F.R. § 208.24(b)).

And this is where things get confusing, because while the court dismissed plaintiff’s negligence per se claim based on violation of this regulation, the court reached the opposite conclusion regarding plaintiff’s negligent failure to warn claim based on exactly the same thing.  A state law failure-to-warn claim based on a violation of federal prescription drug regulations? Sounds like implied preemption to us, but the court concluded that this very federal-sounding claim was actually a parallel state law failure to warn claim. But wait. Isn’t plaintiff suing because the defendant allegedly violated the FDCA.  That’s Buckman implied preemption. As many courts have noted, plaintiffs seeking to avoid preemption have to weave their way through a “narrow gap” by alleging they are suing for conduct that violated the FDCA, but not because the conduct violated the FDCA. But the only allegation here is that defendants did not provide the medication guides as required by federal regulations.

The court’s reasoning is based entirely on dicta in the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Eckhardt v. Qualitest Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 751 F.3d 674, 679 (5th Cir. 2014) that “failing to provide FDA-approved warnings would be a violation of both state and federal law, this is a parallel claim that is not preempted.” Id. But the claim that defendants provided no warnings was not alleged in the complaint and so was not allowed by the court. There is no information in Eckhardt regarding the basis for plaintiff’s claim that defendant failed to provide any warnings and so it is unknown if it was “because” defendant’s violated a federal regulation.

In Monk, the court knew precisely the basis for plaintiff’s failure to warn claim – 21 C.F.R. § 208.24(b); the same basis as plaintiff’s negligence per se claim. That the result is different on both claims is really difficult to reconcile. So we won’t try. We’ll instead reiterate – no negligence per se based on FDCA in Texas.


We’ve addressed sunscreen class actions here from time to time. The FDA regulates sunscreen as an OTC drug, and so these class actions can generate decisions of interest in areas of preemption and primary jurisdiction. For instance, we told you about, Gisvold v. Merck & Co., 62 F. Supp. 3d 1198 (S.D. Cal. 2014), in which a court found preempted a putative class action plaintiff’s claim that the Coppertone SPORT SPF 100+ she bought at Walmart should have disclaimed that it was no more effective than sunscreen with an SPF of 50.  The court based its preemption determination on the plaintiff seeking labeling that was different from that required by the FDA.  In addition, the court invoked primary jurisdiction, deferring to the FDA on how to address SPF values greater than 50, as the FDA was already in the process of evaluating that issue.

But, as in medical device cases, preemption in sunscreen litigation can seem muddled. Just recently in another sunscreen class action, Dayan v. Swiss-American Prods., Inc. (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 207), a federal court in New York rejected a preemption-based motion to dismiss a claim that the labeling of a sunscreen product as SPF 45 was misleading because the product actually performed at a lower SPF level.  As support for his claim, plaintiff pled data from tests conducted under the FDA’s SPF testing protocols. The court adopted a magistrate’s report and recommendation, which reasoned that the plaintiff’s “state law claims [sat] next to federal regulations and are not premised on Defendant’s alleged failure to comply with FDCA requirements.” Id. at *4. Sort of a parallel violation claim for sunscreen.

As the court conceded, though, its distinction between what is preempted and what is not is, at best, “tricky.” Id. at *10. There seems to be little to no air on which plaintiff’s claim can survive between express and implied preemption. If, as his case develops, plaintiff is left to argue that the defendant followed FDA-mandated protocols in testing the sunscreen and disclosing the results, his claim that the label should nonetheless be different would seem to trigger preemption because it would require something different from what the FDA requires. On the other hand, if plaintiff’s claim, as fleshed out through discovery, appears to be that the defendant failed to follow FDA protocols, it would start to read like an improper attempt to privately enforce FDA regulations.

In other words, sunscreen preemption seems every bit as messy as medical device preemption. Maybe, in this case, it can be cleared up at the summary judgment stage—that is, if this case gets passed class certification—where defendant may have another chance, based on a full record of what plaintiff is trying to do, to ask for judgment based on preemption.

Back in October we posted about the Eastern District of Pennsylvania decision McLaughlin v. Bayer Corp, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37516 (EDPA Mar. 22, 2016) saying that while we liked the ultimate result – tossing out most of plaintiffs’ claims – some pieces of the decision weren’t as strong as we would have liked. Well, McLaughlin’s back and it’s still not a slam dunk, but plaintiffs’ don’t have too much left of their cases either.

As a reminder, this is actually a decision in 5 cases each alleging injury from plaintiffs’ use of a Class III, PMA contraceptive device, Essure. McLaughlin v. Bayer Corp., 2017 WL 697047, at *1 (E.D.Pa. Feb. 21, 2017). Several of plaintiffs’ original causes of action were dismissed with prejudice, but they were given an opportunity to amend to try to salvage their claims for negligent training, negligent risk management, breach of express warranty, fraudulent misrepresentation, and negligent manufacture. Negligent misrepresentation and failure to warn premised on failure to report survived the first motion to dismiss.

The decision methodically goes through each cause of action.

Negligent Training: In its first decision, the court opined it was possible to state a parallel claim for negligent training, but since plaintiffs failed to specify how defendant’s training deviated from federal training requirements or how those deviations caused plaintiffs injuries, the claim had to be dismissed as insufficiently pled. Id. at *3. In the amended complaint, plaintiffs alleged 6 such failures by defendant. As to 3, the court couldn’t find any federal directive that required defendant to do what plaintiffs alleged it failed to do. So, as to those 3 allegations, the claim was dismissed as expressly preempted. Id. at *4-5. As to the remaining 3 alleged violations, defendant challenged them on causation grounds but was unsuccessful. The court found the complaint sufficiently alleged that because defendant failed to properly train the doctors, the doctors in turn did not properly place the device causing it to migrate and cause plaintiffs’ injuries. Id. at *5. The complaint, however, lacked any specific allegations about the actual doctors who performed plaintiffs’ surgeries. The court didn’t find that fatal at the pleadings stage – that was for discovery. Id. at *6. But if you look at what the 3 bases for the failure train claim are, they appear to all be things plaintiffs could have asked their doctors about before filing these lawsuits. Did the doctor successfully complete 5 preceptorings? Did the doctor read and understand the training manual? Did the doctor successfully complete the simulator training? If the answers to those 3 questions are yes in each case – this claim is over.

Continue Reading PMA Preemption Revisited in Pennsylvania

One doesn’t see many new PMA preemption issues raised, but we found a case that does just that – Vincent v. Medtronic, Inc., 2016 WL 7374271 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 20, 2016). We are used to seeing plaintiffs try to use off-label use to circumvent PMA preemption. Just check out any of our Infuse posts to see how badly that has worked out for plaintiffs. They largely unsuccessfully have argued that if a product is used off-label, it is used for a purpose for which its PMA approval does not apply and therefore, the PMA requirements likewise don’t apply which plaintiffs contend means preemption should not apply. The courts have disagreed.

In Vincent, plaintiffs tried a similar end run around preemption. Plaintiff underwent surgical implantation of a pacemaker on February 12, 2004. The pacemaker lead used in the surgery was a Class III, PMA medical device. Shortly before plaintiff’s surgery, Medtronic had submitted the lead for supplemental pre-market approval. The approval was granted on March 10, 2004. Id. at *1. Ten years later, plaintiff had to undergo explant surgery due to a fractured lead and then filed a products liability suit. Id. at *2. In addition to standard claims based on failure to warn and design defect, plaintiff alleged that the lead had not received FDA approval at the time of the initial procedure, which was not disclosed to plaintiff or his surgeon. Id.

Continue Reading A Twist on PMA Preemption

This post is from the non-Reed Smith side of the blog.

When we last talked about Shuker v. Smith & Nephew PLC, No. 13-6158 (E.D. Pa.), it was with high praise for the court’s decision tossing out almost all claims as preempted and any non-preempted claims for being inadequately pleaded. Our post on that decision is here. The court gave plaintiff a second chance to re-plead the non-preempted claims, which he did. Defendant again moved to dismiss and this time it was granted with prejudice. Shuker, 2016 WL 5461900 (E.D. Pa. Sep. 29, 2016).

Plaintiff underwent hip replacement surgery. For that surgery, plaintiff’s surgeon opted to use defendant’s R3 hip replacement system, but also used a component, the metal liner, from defendant’s BHR hip resurfacing system. Admittedly, an off-label use. Plaintiff suffered complications that required multiple revision surgeries. Id. at *3.

In its original decision, the court’s leave to amend went only to parallel claims based on allegations of off-label promotion. Id. at *1. Those claims were for “tortious misconduct based on off-label promotion” and fraud. Id. at *4. Plaintiff cites to a single press release to support his allegation that defendant “actively marketed” the metal liner as an option for the R3 system “in a way that led” doctors to believe the liner was a component of the R3 system and safe to use with the R3 system. Id.

Continue Reading Hip Implant Off-Label Promotion Follow-Up

This post is from the non-Reed Smith side of the blog.

If you’re even remotely interested in the topic of preemption in Pre-Market Approved (PMA) medical devices that were used in an off-label manner, simply search this blog for our Infuse cases. There are dozens and almost all are complete victories for the defense. What occasionally survives are fraud or misrepresentation claims, although they have a tough time meeting the heightened pleading standard of Rule 9(b), or failure to warn claims where a court recognizes failure to submit adverse events to the FDA as parallel to a state law duty to warn physicians. As you’ll easily see from our prior writings, we don’t understand that parallelism at all.

The most recent Infuse victory strikes a blow at each and every attempt by plaintiffs to circumvent, dodge, sidestep, and elude preemption and pleadings standards. And with each by-pass blocked, plaintiffs’ claims had nowhere to go.

As a quick refresher, Infuse is a medical device used to stimulate bone growth in spinal fusion surgeries. It is a multi-component device that received FDA PMA approval for use in single-level, anterior, lumbar surgeries. Aaron v. Medtronic, Inc., — F. Supp.3d –, 2016 WL 5242957, *1-2 (W.D. Ohio Sep. 22, 2016). Aaron is actually a consolidation of the claims of several hundred plaintiffs who alleged they were injured by their surgeon’s use of the Infuse device in an off-label manner. Specifically, they allege the device was either implanted without all of its component parts, implanted posteriorly, implanted at multiple levels, or implanted in their cervical or thoracic spines. Id. at *2. Plaintiffs’ causes of action are fraud/misrepresentation, strict liability failure to warn, strict liability design defect, negligence, and breach of express and implied warranties. Id. Defendants moved to dismiss all claims on several grounds, including most predominantly preemption.

Before getting to the substantive analysis, the court had to consider what pleadings standard to apply. Wait. Isn’t it TwIqbal? What’s the issue? The answer is the Seventh Circuit decision in Bausch v. Stryker. The Aaron plaintiffs alleged that they did not need to plead the specific federal law or regulations that defendant allegedly violated because medical device products liability cases should have a “more permissive” review standard. Id. at *3. Plaintiffs got that idea from Bausch which held that particularity in pleading the specific FDA regulations violated was not necessary due to much of the “critical information” being kept confidential. Id. at *3-4. Many courts disagree with Bausch, including the Sixth Circuit which held in a non-medical device case that a “natural imbalance of information” does not warrant lowering Rule 8’s pleading standards. Id. at *4. The discovery process cannot be used to find sufficient factual support for plaintiffs’ pleadings after the fact. So, Aaron applies TwIqbal, not some watered down version (although the court does state that some of plaintiffs’ claims might not have withstood application of that lesser standard).

Continue Reading Another Slam Dunk Infuse Win – Preemption and More