News & Analysis as of

Failure To Warn Preemption Medical Devices

Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP

California Appellate Court Upholds Federal Preemption of Negligent Undertaking Claim Under the Medical Device Amendments of 1976

Federal preemption can be a very powerful defense. For example, claims concerning Class III medical devices requiring pre-market approval are generally preempted by the Medical Device Amendments of 1976, 21 U.S.C. § 360c, et...more

Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP

Blurry Vision in Two Courts Leads to Denial of Preemption in Intraocular Lens Implant Case

A recent Second Circuit preemption decision illustrates the importance of a clear-eyed approach to medical device preemption issues. In Glover v. Bausch & Lomb, Inc., 6 F.4th 229 (2d Cir. 2021), the district court...more

Nutter McClennen & Fish LLP

Product Liability 2021 Year in Review

Massachusetts federal and state courts issued several important product liability decisions in 2021. Nutter’s Product Liability practice group reviewed these cases and report on their significant holdings as follows...more

Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP

Ninth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Breast Implant Cases on Preemption Grounds

The Ninth Circuit has confirmed in quadrophonic sound that plaintiffs cannot avoid preemption by relying on vague and speculative allegations to establish a parallel claim. The court affirmed the dismissal of four lawsuits...more

Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP

California’s Parallel State Law Duty to Report Adverse Events to U.S. Food and Drug Administration Cannot Be Reconciled with Legal...

Earlier this year, the California Court of Appeals in Mize v. Mentor Worldwide LLC, 51 Cal.App.5th 850 (2020), reversed a trial court’s dismissal of failure to warn and other claims against a medical device manufacturer,...more

Snell & Wilmer

Arizona Limits Failure to Warn Claims Against Medical Device Manufacturers

Snell & Wilmer on

On December 18, 2018, the Arizona Supreme Court issued an opinion clarifying manufacturers’ duty to warn consumers under Arizona common law. The Court held that the federal Medical Device Amendments (“MDA”) impliedly...more

Harris Beach PLLC

Significant New York Drug and Device 2017 Product Liability Decisions

Harris Beach PLLC on

To prepare the best product liability defense for pharmaceuticals and medical devices as well as anticipate and strategically plan for future challenges in the medical and life sciences legal world, it is often helpful to...more

Foley Hoag LLP

Product Liability Update: October 2017

Foley Hoag LLP on

Massachusetts Federal Court In Multi-District Litigation Holds Under Six States’ Laws That Manufacturer Of Brand-Name Pharmaceutical Is Not Liable For Injuries Caused By Generic Equivalents Whose Manufacturers Were Required...more

Butler Snow LLP

Pro Te: Solutio Vol. 8 No. 2

Butler Snow LLP on

Summer is in full swing and certain topics are (staying) hot—especially regulatory issues, from new proposed rules to challenges to case law to strategic considerations. Generic preemption remains a hot topic. In Storm...more

Foley Hoag LLP

Product Liability Update - July 2015

Foley Hoag LLP on

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Holds Failure-to-Warn Claim Against Drug Manufacturer Not Preempted Because There Was No “Clear Evidence” FDA Would Not Have Approved Plaintiffs’ Suggested Warning; Also Holds...more

10 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 1

"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.
- hide
- hide