Limits of Device Preemption Described
Attorney Cliff Rieders (Rieders, Travis) says the Supreme Court has laid out several types of state law tort claims about medical devices that are preempted by federal law. In a Legal Intelligencer blog post (free subscription required) that traces medical device preemption relating to products approved through PMAs and 510(k)s, Rieders says that courts have “made room for state law ‘parallel’ claims as not preempted under Riegel under very narrow circumstances.” He reviews several of these court decisions, including a case involving statements made by a manufacturer representative during surgery that were not preempted. He says that case made clear that medical device manufacturers are not insulated from common law negligence claims based on the preemption doctrine when the manufacturers have representatives who interact with physicians and are present at surgical procedures. “Preemption does not provide immunity, especially where the Class 3 or other medical device developer becomes engaged in medical care, beyond merely placing the product in the stream of commerce,” he says.