We like Riegel preemption because the oscillations of state tort juries should not supplant FDA regulation of medical devices. We like Twombly and Iqbal because plaintiffs should plead sensible facts before turning on the million dollar discovery machine. We do not much like the parallel claim exception to Riegel because its origin is muddy, its
Although trial court judges mostly get things right, every once in a while a trial court judge will issue an opinion that just plain stinks. We aren’t simply talking about any old decision in favor of a plaintiff suing a drug or device company. We recognize that some trial court decisions against our clients are
Professor Ben Zipursky (Fordham) just published a guest post over at Torts Prof Blog ruminating about why the Supreme Court found preemption in the context of medical devices that had undergone premarket approval in Riegel v. Medtronic, but did not find preemption in the context of prescription drugs on the facts of Wyeth v. Levine.
We had to comment on the most intriguing case of Hughes v. Boston Scientific Corp., 2009 WL 3817586 (S.D. Miss. Nov. 12, 2009). Hughes involved a PMA device, something called a “HydroTherm Ablator,” that allegedly malfunctioned and injured the plaintiff. Thereafter, the defendant (1) changed its adverse event reporting algorithm in response to FDA
The Riegel v. Medtronic case now has an official “U.S.” cite. It’s now Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc., 552 U.S. 312 (2008).
Richard Epstein (Chicago and NYU) has this piece — arguing that Congress should maintain preemption in the context of PMA-approved medical devices and extend similar protection to prescription drugs — at Forbes.com.
For those who are following the Medical Device Safety Act of 2009 — the bill that would reverse the Supreme Court’s pro-preemption decision in Riegel v. Medtronic, here are two links:
First, a short list of the names and affiliations of the witnesses who testified yesterday before the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee.
Second, the
Sometimes, we try to be encyclopedic in our blog posts. Sometimes, we try to be funny. (Yeah, yeah: “Try” is the operative word.) Today, we’re just being descriptive.
In Delaney v. Stryker Orthopedics, No. 08-03210 (DMC), 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16865 (D.N.J. Mar. 5, 2009), Delaney underwent hip replacement surgery with a hip prosthesis manufactured
As you know, we watch the medical device preemption cases.
But here’s a Riegel wrinkle. (In fact, we like this case so much that we might call it
It’s been a tough two days for the drug and device industry.
Yesterday, Wyeth v. Levine.
Today, the Medical Device Safety Act of 2009, which is meant to reverse legislatively the Supreme Court’s pro-preemption decision in Riegel v. Medtronic.
Here’s a link to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, which reports on the introduction