Preemption Notes

Dechert LLP
Contact

A couple of recent preemption developments warrant mention.

Horned In; Horned Out

In Horn v. Boston Scientific Neuromodulation Corp., 2011 U.S. Dist. Lexis 102164 (S.D. Ga. Aug. 26, 2011), the defendant, a manufacturer of a PMA medical device, won preemption of a claim that’s often lost, and lost preemption of a claim that’s often won. The upside (from our defense standpoint) in Horn was the court’s treatment of negligence per se, which can be a form of unpreempted “parallel violation” claim. To escape preemption, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant’s representative violated an FDA “quality system regulation” about “storage areas” because she kept devices in her home overnight before delivering them to hospitals for use in surgery. The court held the claim preempted because that regulation – “or any QSR for that matter” – was too broad and vague to be a basis for a parallel claim. Id. at *20-25. So Horn is precedent for knocking out a whole category of FDA regulations (QSRs) for preemption purposes.

Please see full publication below for more information.

LOADING PDF: If there are any problems, click here to download the file.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Dechert LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Dechert LLP
Contact
more
less

Dechert LLP on:

Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
- hide
- hide