Claims Surviving Preemption Have Hard Going: Attorney

Share
Attorney Michelle Yeary says that medical device suits that survive preemption challenges often have difficulty proceeding due to stringent requirements placed on them. Writing online in a Drug and Device Law Blog post, Yeary cites Swisher v. Stryker Corp in which a plaintiff claiming injury from a hip implant asserted a parallel claim based on alleged violations of PMA specifications and applicable good manufacturing practices.

The suit originally was dismissed for not meeting pleading standards, Yeary writes. Then the plaintiff amended the complaint with sufficient facts to maintain a parallel claim and the case proceeded. However, she says, a company challenge to a plaintiff expert witness resulted in an Oklahoma federal court determining that the engineering expert could testify about the heat treatment used in the manufacturing process and the effect of that heat treatment on the metal used in the device. But the court would not allow the expert to express an opinion on the FDA regulatory scheme and whether the device did or did not comply with manufacturing standards.

“So plaintiffs are going to need more and varied experts if they are going to maintain their parallel violation claims,” Yeary writes. “This means the cases are more difficult and more expensive for plaintiffs.”

Read more