LASIK patients can’t sue over ‘off-label’ uses 
Published: March 28, 2013
Tags: LASIK surgery, Medical Device Amendments to the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act, off-label use, preemption, product liability
Eye surgery patients could not pursue product liability claims based solely on their doctors’ “off-label” use of laser medical devices to perform their procedures, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled in affirming a dismissal.
Medtronic pacemaker claim preempted
Published: October 5, 2012
Tags: FDA, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINSTRATION, Medical Device Amendments to the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act, Medtronic, preemption, product liability, Riegel v. Medtronic
Federal law preempts product liability claims relating to a woman who died when her Medtronic pacemaker failed, a U.S. District Court in Florida has ruled in granting a motion to dismiss.
Pain pump lawsuit preempted
By:
Pat Murphy
Published: March 9, 2011
Tags: Medical Device Amendments to the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act, pain pump, preemption, product liability, Riegel v. Medtronic
Federal law regulating medical devices preempts state product liability claims against the manufacturer of a pain pump, the 11th Circuit has ruled in affirming a summary judgment.
Medical device claim not preempted
By:
Pat Murphy
Published: January 25, 2011
Tags: failure to warn, Food and Drug Administration, Medical Device Amendments to the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act, preemption, product liability, Riegel v. Medtronic
Federal law does not completely preempt state law failure-to-warn claims against the manufacturer of a medical device used to treat excess uterine bleeding, the 5th Circuit has ruled in reversing a summary judgment.
Medtronic defibrillator claims preempted
By:
Pat Murphy
Published: October 19, 2010
Tags: Medical Device Amendments to the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act, Medtronic, preemption, product liability
Federal law regulating medical devices completely preempts product liability lawsuits challenging the safety of leads for a certain brand of cardiac defibrillators, the 8th Circuit has ruled in affirming a dismissal.
