Medtech Insight is part of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them. Informa PLC’s registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

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
UsernamePublicRestriction

Combo Products Offer Ambiguity For Product Liability Pre-emption

This article was originally published in The Gray Sheet

Executive Summary

Plaintiffs lawyers are trying to leverage the ambiguous status of combination products as an exception to a Feb. 20 U.S. Supreme Court decision that affirms significant protections for the device industry from personal injury lawsuits

You may also be interested in...



Sales Rep In The Operating Room Could Increase Liability Risk, Suit Suggests

The presence of a device manufacturer's sales representative in the operating room during a procedure could make the company more vulnerable to liability if something goes wrong, according to a recent court ruling

Sales Rep In The Operating Room Could Increase Liability Risk, Suit Suggests

The presence of a device manufacturer's sales representative in the operating room during a procedure could make the company more vulnerable to liability if something goes wrong, according to a recent court ruling

St. Jude class-action suit decertified

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eight Circuit on April 9 reverses an order from the U.S. District Court for Minnesota that certified a class of plaintiffs to litigate against St. Jude Medical regarding the firm's Silzone prosthetic heart valve. St. Jude's coated valve was approved in 1998, but was pulled off the market in 2000 after an independent clinical trial identified a small increase in paravalvular leaks (1"The Gray Sheet" March 17, 2008, p. 11). The appeals court held that class action was not appropriate because whether the information on which physicians based their treatment could be traced back to St. Jude "will invariably vary by individual physician" and a "need for such plaintiff-by-plaintiff determinations means that common issues will not predominate the inquiry into St. Jude's liability.

Related Content

UsernamePublicRestriction

Register

MT025879

Ask The Analyst

Please Note: You can also Click below Link for Ask the Analyst
Ask The Analyst

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