LegalNewsLine Logo  
Friday, March 19 2010     Subscribe in NewsGator Online
News | Contact LegalNewsline | About Us | Advertise | RSS
Enter search keyword
 
NEWSLETTER
Receive our FREE weekly newsletter
click here
LNL MOST POPULAR ARTICLES
+ AG Tom Miller lands in GOP crosshairs
+ Settlement reached over nutritional supplement enrollment plan‏
+ Brown gets polluting hair products taken off store shelves
+ Whitman leads Brown in latest poll
+ Texas medical malpractice law survives challenge
LNL HOT TOPICS
+ Asbestos
+ Bankruptcy
+ Big Pharma
+ Class Action
+ Dickie Scruggs
+ Financial Crisis
+ Gasoline Prices
+ Global Warming
+ Hurricane Katrina
+ Lead Paint
+ Personal Injury
+ Sub-Prime Mortgages
State Supreme Courts 
 
Wisconsin court tosses product liability lawsuit against Medtronic
MADISON, Wis. (Legal Newsline)-The Wisconsin Supreme Court has thrown out a case against Medtronic, Inc., ruling that federal law preempts state claims against approved medical devices.

The high court ruled that patients cannot sue manufacturers of medical devices approved by the U.S Food and Drug Administration.

Joseph Blunt Sr. sued Medtronic, Inc. after he had a Medtronic defibrillator removed after the company said the device's battery had a chance of failing.

Blunt's case centered on whether state negligence and product liability claims are pre-empted by federal law where a defective product received FDA approval.

Blunt had Medtronic's Marquis 7230 defibrillator implanted in his heart in 2004. A year later, Medtronic issued a warning that the devices' batteries could fail and result in death.

Blunt filed a lawsuit in Milwaukee County Circuit Court, alleging the company was negligent for continuing to sell an unsafe device. Blunt and his wife sued Medtronic, alleging negligence, strict product liability, and a loss of consortium and companionship.

At trial, Milwaukee Judge Richard Sankovitz ruled that the Minneapolis-based company was protected by federal law since the device was FDA-approved.

A state appeals court agreed the claim was pre-empted by federal law.

"The main basis for the Blunts' claim is that the original battery design was defective due to the potential shorting mechanism," the appeals court ruled. "If a jury found in favor of the Blunts on that claim, it would result in a state requirement different from the federal requirement. It would result in a jury finding that the FDA's approval of the design was erroneous."

In its ruling Tuesday, the state Supreme Court affirmed the earlier rulings. Among other industry groups, the Product Liability Advisory Council urged the justices to affirm the earlier rulings and dismiss the lawsuit.

The petition to bring the case before the Wisconsin Supreme Court was held in abeyance pending the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc.

A decision in the case was issued Feb. 20. In its ruling, the high court held that the pre-emption clause of the Medical Device Amendments Act barred claims challenging the safety or effectiveness of a medical device marketed in a form that received pre-market approval.

From Legal Newsline: Reach staff reporter Chris Rizo at chrisrizo@legalnewsline.com.

Filed Under: State Supreme Courts


COMMENTS ON THIS ARTICLE:

No comments have been posted in the last 15 days!

SEND US YOUR COMMENTS ON THIS ARTICLE:


* - Required fields

Subject: *
Message: *
Contact Name: *
Contact URL:
Contact Email: *
This Is CAPTCHA Image
Write the characters in the image above: 

E-mail this article to a friend | Printer friendly format

MORE NEWS HEADLINES:
+ Del. SC's stance on medical monitoring debated - 3/16  
+ S.C. justices overturn $18M Ford verdict - 3/15  
+ Texas medical malpractice law survives challenge - 3/15  
+ W.Va. SC won't rehear controversial $50M case - 3/11  
+ W.Va. Senate OKs business court plan - 3/10  
+ Tort reformer: N.J. SC's jurisdiction decision a dangerous one - 3/10  
+ Voters want candidates to use taxpayer money in W.Va., poll shows - 3/8  
+ New judge for Fourth Circuit - 3/3  
+ Calif. chief justice laments court closures - 2/24  
+ Colorado's Amendment 54 declared unconstitutional - 2/23  


IN THE SPOTLIGHT:
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Most of the judges on the New Mexico Court of Appeals get a failing grade when it comes to the "expansion of liability," according to a judicial evaluation report.
Read more...


+ 'Land of Enchantment' in 'Hellhole': Tort reform group calls New Mexico's appeals court 'pro-liability' - 3/2
+ Group puts the brakes on Honda class action settlement - 2/23
+ AG Brown, feds sitting out whisteblower suit against pipemaker - 2/18
+ Calif. AG hopeful vows to target public employee pension increases - 2/12
+ Nebraska AG Bruning's political star rising - 2/5
BROWSE BY STATE:
 
BROWSE BY AG:
 
BROWSE BY DATE:
 
LATEST LNL BLOG ENTRIES:
+ Abbott: Beware Dietary Supplement Scams and 'Miracle' Health Claims
+ Abbott's signs of a scam
+ AG McCollum on convicts in the mortgage industry
NEWS WIDGET:
Attention bloggers:
Add Record Headlines to your site!


fast + free- click here

NEWS | CONTACT LEGALNEWSLINE | ABOUT US | ADVERTISE | RSS © 2008 LegalNewsLine.com. All Rights Reserved.