Law Reporter | Products Liability Law Reporter | Professional Negligence Law Reporter
Publish your case | Other publications

Court Documents by Topic

Medical Device Amendments and Preemption

Documents can be downloaded from the Exchange. For security reasons, the AAJ Exchange and its products are available only to AAJ Regular, Life, Sustaining, and President’s Club members.

Document Sets $95

• Blanchard v. Collagen Corp., 15 PLLR 51 (Apr. 1996) (plaintiff’s memoranda opposing summary judgment in a case in which the court held that the MDA does not preempt claims alleging a medical product was contaminated through failure to comply with federal regulations). No. PL623.

• Comm. of Dental Amalgam Mfrs. & Distributors v. Stratton, 15 PLLR 171 (Nov. 1996) (appellate briefs arguing that the MDA does not preempt a California statute requiring consumer warnings for products that pose health risks). No. PL652.

• Connelly v. Iolab Corp., 15 PLLR 170 (Nov. 1996) (the parties’ appellate briefs in a case alleging the MDA does not preempt state law tort claims for defective intraocular lenses). No. PL658.

• Goodlin v. Medtronic, Inc., 18 PLLR 67 (May 1999) (the parties’ appellate briefs in a case holding that the premarket approval process required for certain medical devices does not impose a specific federal requirement for a particular device that would warrant preemption of state law claims under the MDA). No. PL775.

• Kennedy v. Collagen Corp., 15 PLLR 8 (Feb. 1996) (the parties’ briefs in a case holding the MDA does not preempt Class III medical device claims). No. PL613.

• Kernats v. Smith Indus. Med. Sys., Inc., 15 PLLR 191 (Dec. 1996) (plaintiffs’ appellate briefs and answer to defendant’s petition in a case holding the MDA does not preempt state law claims alleging defects in a device subject to the premarket approval process). No. PL659.

• Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr, 15 PLLR 114 (July 1996) (plaintiffs’ brief and defendant’s certiorari petition in a case holding the MDA does not preempt pacemaker claims). No. PL619.

• Niehoff v. Surgidev Corp., 16 PLLR 151 (Oct. 1997) (the parties’ briefs in a case rejecting MDA preemption of state law claims against the manufacturer of a product marketed under the IDE). No. PL691.

• Strong v. Telectronics Pacing Sys., Inc., 15 PLLR 114 (July 1996) (plaintiff’s appellate briefs in a case holding a negligent manufacturing claim may not be removed to federal court based on MDA preemption). No. PL642.

• Woods v. Gliatech, Inc., 21 PLLR 195 (Dec. 2002) (plaintiff’s memoranda in response to defendant’s (1) motion for summary judgment and (2) motion in limine to exclude evidence of the FDA’s investigation of defendant and subsequent plea agreement in a case holding that the MDA did not preempt negligence, warranty, or fraud claims against the maker of a surgical gel). No. PL934.