Stengel v. Medtronic, Inc.: The Riegel/Buckman Gap Narrows in the Ninth Circuit

more+
less-

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has further curtailed the universe of state law claims pertaining to Class III medical devices that are neither expressly preempted by Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc., 552 U.S. 312, 315 (2008) nor impliedly preempted by Buckman Co. v. Plaintiffs’ Legal Committee, 531 U.S. 341, 349-50 (2001). In Stengel v. Medtronic, Inc., --- F.3d ---, 2012 WL 1255040 (9th Cir. Apr. 16, 2012), the court ruled that a state law failure-to-warn claim premised on Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations was impliedly preempted by the Supreme Court’s decision in Buckman because it was analytically indistinct from the “fraud-on-the-FDA” claim with which Buckman dealt. To wit, both claims revolved around allegations that the defendant misled the FDA, whether by commission (Buckman) or omission (Stengel).

When considered in conjunction with Riegel’s express preemption of state law claims that add to or change the duties of Class III medical device manufacturers under the Medical Device Amendments to the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, the Ninth Circuit’s robust view of Buckman implied preemption leaves very little room for a plaintiff to state a cognizable state law cause of action against the manufacturer of a medical device cleared through the FDA’s premarket approval (PMA) process. The court recognized the sharpened dilemma it left potential plaintiffs, but identified state law manufacturing defect actions as a category of claims that had passed through the Riegel/Buckman gauntlet unscathed, at least in the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. This is because such claims parallel federal duties (and thus skirt Riegel) without relying solely on the breach of duties created by federal regulation (which would run afoul of Buckman).

Please see full article below for more information.

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

Published In: Administrative Agency Updates, Civil Procedure Updates, Conflict of Laws Updates, Products Liability Updates

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.

© Sedgwick LLP | Attorney Advertising

Don't miss a thing! Build a custom news brief:

Read fresh new writing on compliance, cybersecurity, Dodd-Frank, whistleblowers, social media, hiring & firing, patent reform, the NLRB, Obamacare, the SEC…

…or whatever matters the most to you. Follow authors, firms, and topics on JD Supra.

Create your news brief now - it's free and easy »