Court Addresses Device Preemption ‘Catch 22’: Attorney

Share

Attorney James Beck (Reed Smith) says a North Carolina federal court has addressed a Catch 22 that existed in the preemption of state tort claims against PMA medical devices. Writing in an online blog post, Beck says that to survive preemption, plaintiffs suing the manufacturers of PMA medical devices have to allege parallel claims in which all common law claims must be genuinely equivalent to violations of FDA regulations. But, in earlier cases not involving medical devices, courts have held that the more “federal” looking the cause of action, the more likely it is to support federal question jurisdiction.

According to Beck, Burrell v. Bayer Corp. involved the company’s Essure contraceptive device. The plaintiff filed a complaint consisting of almost entirely parallel violation claims, he writes. Bayer removed the claim to federal court despite the presence of non-diverse prescribing physicians.

Beck says the court relied on a three-part test to determine whether there was a federal question: 

  •          the action involves a federal question that was necessarily raised as well as actually disputed;
  •          the question must be substantial; and
  •          the federal question must be capable of review “without disrupting the federal-state balance.”

“The existence of extensive federal preemption, in and of itself, is a strong indication that Congress preferred federal to state court jurisdiction in this aspect of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act,” Beck concludes. “That plaintiff pleaded claims brimming with FDA standards and allegations of violations of federal law further demonstrated the propriety of federal jurisdiction. Federal-state balance is not a code word for shrinking federal court dockets, but rather entails balancing the federal and state aspects of the plaintiff’s allegations.”

Read more