ILNews

DTCI: The broad scope of MDA preemption

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Twohy No photoThe Medical Device Amend-ments of 1976 to the Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act (MDA) authorized the federal Food and Drug Administration to regulate medical devices while preempting state efforts to enforce any legal requirement that (1) relates to the device’s safety, effectiveness, or other matters committed to the FDA and (2) “is different from, or in addition to,” any requirement imposed under the MDA. 21 U.S.C. § 360k(a).

In a series of decisions culminating in Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc., 128 S. Ct. 999, 1008 (2008), federal courts came to recognize that the MDA preempted not only traditional products liability claims such as those based on an alleged defect or implied warranty but also causes of action premised on theories such as consumer fraud. Since any legal “requirement” for a device that is “different from, or in addition to” that imposed by the MDA (or FDA in its regulatory capacity) is preempted, the only way to avoid preemption is to allege a failure to meet FDA requirements.

The broad scope of MDA preemption has become apparent as District courts around the country have applied § 360k(a), as interpreted in Riegel, to dispose of one products liability case after another, all of which allege injuries from Class III medical devices and seek recovery under various theories, including strict products liability, breach of warranty, and negligence. In general, claims that have alleged something other than a failure by the device manufacturer to adhere to FDA requirements with respect to the device at issue (either with respect to its manufacture or the directions for its use) have been dismissed on preemption grounds.

Congress may amend § 360k to overrule Riegel. The Medical Device Safety Act of 2008, H.R. 1346, currently before the House Subcommittee on Health, would add a new subsection (c) to § 360k (entitled “No Effect on Liability under State Law”) to make clear that “[n]othing in this section [360k] shall be construed to modify or otherwise affect any action for damages or the liability of any person under the law of any State.” (An identical bill, S. 540, is pending before the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions.) The enactment of the bill has been identified as a top legislative priority by the American Association for Justice.

Nonetheless, pending congressional action, Riegel applies to bar even claims by plaintiffs who have suffered injuries caused by devices that malfunctioned or were arguably defective in their manufacture. In one of the many post-Riegel cases that illustrate this phenomenon, a New Jersey District Court recently granted summary judgment for the defendant manufacturer of a Class III device that was alleged to have injured the plaintiff, where the plaintiff failed to present admissible evidence that the manufacturer had deviated from FDA requirements when it manufactured the device. Banner v. Cyberonics, Inc., 2010 WL 455286 (D.N.J. Feb. 4, 2010). In unusually blunt language, the court emphatically rejected plaintiff’s argument that the device, an implantable VNS therapy unit, could be manufactured according to FDA requirements yet still contain an “anomaly” leading to plaintiff’s injury that would support liability on a non-preempted theory.

Applying Riegel to grant the manufacturer’s summary judgment motion, the court observed that “[t]he FDA approves the process by which a Class III device is manufactured, but it does not guarantee that every device manufactured in that process will work. Thus, if the FDA approves a manufacturing process and the defendant-manufacturer conforms with it, a device thereby produced that nevertheless does not function as intended does not give rise to liability.” Banner, 2010 WL 455286 at *4. The fact that a device may in fact be “defective” (differing from its design in a way that may cause it to malfunction) does not take it outside the scope of MDA preemption. As the court recognized, “[i]t is distinctly possible that the FDA-approved process introduces a margin of error wherein a properly manufactured device may nevertheless depart from its intended design. Under Riegel, state law cannot capture this departure and create liability for it because that would, in effect, require the manufacturer to use greater care than required by the FDA.” Banner at *4. The scope of MDA preemption thus parallels the risk calculus employed by FDA in determining whether to grant premarket approval for a Class III medical device.•

__________

John P. Twohy is a partner in the Hammond office of Eichhorn & Eichhorn and is a director of the DTCI. The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The sad thing is that no fish were thrown overboard The "greenhorn" who had never fished before those 5 days was interrogated for over 4 hours by 5 officers until his statement was illicited, "I don't want to go to prison....." The truth is that these fish were measured frozen off shore and thawed on shore. The FWC (state) officer did not know fish shrink, so the only reason that these fish could be bigger was a swap. There is no difference between a 19 1/2 fish or 19 3/4 fish, short fish is short fish, the ticket was written. In addition the FWC officer testified at trial, he does not measure fish in accordance with federal law. There was a document prepared by the FWC expert that said yes, fish shrink and if these had been measured correctly they averaged over 20 inches (offshore frozen). This was a smoke and mirror prosecution.

  2. I love this, Dave! Many congrats to you! We've come a long way from studying for the bar together! :)

  3. This outbreak illustrates the absurdity of the extreme positions taken by today's liberalism, specifically individualism and the modern cult of endless personal "freedom." Ebola reminds us that at some point the person's own "freedom" to do this and that comes into contact with the needs of the common good and "freedom" must be curtailed. This is not rocket science, except, today there is nonstop propaganda elevating individual preferences over the common good, so some pundits have a hard time fathoming the obvious necessity of quarantine in some situations....or even NATIONAL BORDERS...propagandists have also amazingly used this as another chance to accuse Western nations of "racism" which is preposterous and offensive. So one the one hand the idolatry of individualism has to stop and on the other hand facts people don't like that intersect with race-- remain facts nonetheless. People who respond to facts over propaganda do better in the long run. We call it Truth. Sometimes it seems hard to find.

  4. It would be hard not to feel the Kramers' anguish. But Catholic Charities, by definition, performed due diligence and held to the statutory standard of care. No good can come from punishing them for doing their duty. Should Indiana wish to change its laws regarding adoption agreements and or putative fathers, the place for that is the legislature and can only apply to future cases. We do not apply new laws to past actions, as the Kramers seem intent on doing, to no helpful end.

  5. I am saddened to hear about the loss of Zeff Weiss. He was an outstanding member of the Indianapolis legal community. My thoughts are with his family.

ADVERTISEMENT