Photo of Bexis

We must have been a little asleep at the switch, because, several weeks ago, now, the Solicitor General, on behalf of the FDA, filed the government’s merits amicus brief in the Riegel v. Medtronic PMA express preemption case. We didn’t find out about it (and none of you told us – hey, we can whine

Photo of Bexis

Here’s the SG’s amicus brief in Riegel v. Medtronic, as it appears on the SG’s website. We’ll give you more analysis tomorrow, but take our word for it, if you like preemption like we do, it’s gooooooood.

Photo of Bexis

The Supreme Court briefing is now complete in Riegel v. Medtronic. For preemption wonks like us, that’s sort of like being a kid in a candy store – so we’ve taken a good look at what have to be the best and most state of the art defense preemption arguments around for those of

Photo of Bexis

Recently we posted twice about procedural irregularities that threatened the Supreme Court’s consideration of Riegel v. Medtronic. Today the Supreme Court granted the plaintiff’s belated motion to substitute an estate for the deceased Mr. Riegel, thus insuring that the Court will hear the medical device preemption issue on the merits. Chief Justice Roberts and

Photo of Bexis

We’ve had a couple of inquiries since our last post on Riegel went up asking for the papers filed concerning the belated disclosure of the plaintiff’s death. We like to think of ourselves as a full-service blog, so here they are. The first thing filed was plaintiff’s suggestion of death and motion for substitution. The

Photo of Bexis

We’ve heard through the grapevine (well because one of us has tangential involvement) that the Riegel v. Medtronic case, that the Supreme Court took to sort out the question of preemption and pre-market approved medical devices, may not get decided after all.

There’s been a flurry of recent motion practice due to the death of

Photo of Bexis

The United States Supreme Court today granted certiorari in Riegel v. Medtronic.

We’ll know next Term (certainly before the end of June 2008, and probably long before then) whether the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act preempts state law claims involving medical devices that came on the market through the premarket approval process.

As