Medtech Insight is part of Pharma Intelligence UK Limited

This site is operated by Pharma Intelligence UK Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 13787459 whose registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. The Pharma Intelligence group is owned by Caerus Topco S.à r.l. and all copyright resides with the group.

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use. For high-quality copies or electronic reprints for distribution to colleagues or customers, please call +44 (0) 20 3377 3183

Printed By

UsernamePublicRestriction

Supreme Court To Hear Medtronic Pre-emption Case, Despite Irregularities

This article was originally published in The Gray Sheet

Executive Summary

The U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed Oct. 1 that it will hear a case against Medtronic this session that could settle the long-standing issue of whether FDA premarket approval protects device manufacturers from liability in patient lawsuits

You may also be interested in...



Supreme Court sets pre-emption case date

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear Riegel v. Medtronic on Dec. 4 in what could be the last word on the issue of federal PMA preemption. Charles and Donna Riegel sued Medtronic for alleged negligence in the design, testing, labeling and manufacturing of the Evergreen balloon catheter after the balloon burst while Mr. Riegel was undergoing an angioplasty procedure. The plaintiffs claim that Medtronic should be liable for resulting complications, while the company counters that the product was in compliance with FDA regulations for labeling, manufacturing and design, among other requirements, and thus is not vulnerable to state suits (1"The Gray Sheet" Oct. 8, 2007, p. 11)

Supreme Court sets pre-emption case date

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear Riegel v. Medtronic on Dec. 4 in what could be the last word on the issue of federal PMA preemption. Charles and Donna Riegel sued Medtronic for alleged negligence in the design, testing, labeling and manufacturing of the Evergreen balloon catheter after the balloon burst while Mr. Riegel was undergoing an angioplasty procedure. The plaintiffs claim that Medtronic should be liable for resulting complications, while the company counters that the product was in compliance with FDA regulations for labeling, manufacturing and design, among other requirements, and thus is not vulnerable to state suits (1"The Gray Sheet" Oct. 8, 2007, p. 11)

Supreme Court To Judge Protective Power Of PMA Approval In State Suits

The U.S. Supreme Court on June 25 agreed to consider whether device manufacturers are protected by FDA premarket approval in state product liability cases

Latest Headlines
See All
UsernamePublicRestriction

Register

MT025352

Ask The Analyst

Ask the Analyst is free for subscribers.  Submit your question and one of our analysts will be in touch.

Your question has been successfully sent to the email address below and we will get back as soon as possible. my@email.address.

All fields are required.

Please make sure all fields are completed.

Please make sure you have filled out all fields

Please make sure you have filled out all fields

Please enter a valid e-mail address

Please enter a valid Phone Number

Ask your question to our analysts

Cancel