We previously posted about plaintiffs’ shenanigans in attempting to defeat diversity in a medical device case removed to the Northern District of Illinois. Plaintiffs’ antics were unsuccessful, and the federal court denied plaintiff’s motion remand.  Today’s decision addresses the defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ third amended complaint in the same case, and it is very favorable from a preemption standpoint. Miller v. Rush University Medical Center, 2026 WL 147413 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 20, 2026).

Miller involves a cervical disc replacement device (the “Mobi-C”). The device includes an accompanying inserter with a “depth stop” mechanism used to prevent the Mobi-C from going too far into the spinal cord during insertion. Plaintiff and his spouse sued the device manufacturer, the distributor, two sales representatives, the hospital, and the treating physician based on claims that he suffered spinal cord contusions during surgery. The defendants moved to dismiss, with the manufacturer and distributor arguing that all claims against them were preempted. The court agreed.  

It’s MLB playoff season and once again the Milwaukee Brewers are at the top of the field. They, along with the Philadelphia Phillies and the Chicago Cubs, have all secured a home-field advantage in the playoffs. That means those teams have the tactical edge of getting the final at-bat in each inning and overall. They…

Today’s guest post is from Dechert’s Brooke Meadowcroft who brings us her take on an unfortunate learned intermediary ruling out of Illinois. As always, our guest posters deserve 100% of the praise (and any of blame) for their posts. Not that we expect the latter. 

*******

The learned intermediary doctrine is the elegant legal principle…

This is from the non-Dechert and non-RS portion of the Blog.

We used to post about defense wins in litigation over both branded and generic ranitidine fairly often.  The MDL in the Southern District of Florida systematically knocked down all of plaintiffs’ theories based on the lack of legal support (e.g., preemption) and lack of…

Yes, we are the Drug and Device Law Blog.  Yes, we at times stray into other areas when we think a decision has application to our DDL world.  Yes, today’s case is about a “drug” product.  No, today’s case is not about a drug for humans.  In fact, it really isn’t about a drug at…

One good thing that occurred during the pandemic was the expansion of telehealth.  Telehealth existed already and probably would have been expanding anyway, but patient willingness to get care from home instead of risking exposure from an in-person visit paired well with provider interest in not going to or even having to maintain an office. …

One of the break-through moments in the first year of law school is when your Contracts professor distinguishes actionable promises from mere “puffery.” Not every statement invites reliance.  You cannot take every statement by a seller literally. The concept of non actionable puffery is the law’s way of telling us to grow up, to get…

We don’t see many cases involving human tissue, but medical products derived from human tissue are actually quite common.  Skin replacement products, tissue-engineered cartilage, compounds for treating bone fractures and tumors.  Those kinds of things.  Just yesterday in our annual Ten Best/Ten Worst Cases webinar we discussed a case involving transplanted human eye tissue. …