Subject: Medical Devices

NY Federal Court Ruling Strengthens FDA Preemption for Class III Device Manufacturers

Share

A recent preemption decision out of the Southern District of New York offers encouraging news for medical device manufacturers. In Wieder v. Advanced Bionics LLC, 2025 WL 3237257 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 20, 2025), the magistrate judge has recommended that most of the state law claims asserted against a cochlear implant manufacturer be dismissed as preempted by federal law under the Medical Device Amendments (MDA) to the Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act (FDCA). While this is not a final decision yet, should the report and recommendation be adopted, it will be a welcome decision for device manufacturers because it reaffirms that state law claims challenging the safety or effectiveness of a pre-market approved (PMA) medical device are broadly preempted.

Weider involved allegations against the manufacturer of a Class III PMA cochlear implant. The plaintiffs alleged the device, which was implanted in their young child, was defectively manufactured and designed, citing issues with a silicone seal and alleging the manufacturer knew of a design flaw that was revealed by a company-backed clinical study. The manufacturer moved to dismiss the case in its entirety, arguing that federal preemption barred the claims or, alternatively, that the claims were inadequately pleaded.

Continue reading “NY Federal Court Ruling Strengthens FDA Preemption for Class III Device Manufacturers”

Nothing Shocking Here – Eleventh Circuit Affirms Defense Win in Electroconvulsive Therapy Case

Share

When a case involves electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), one might think it originated out of the Twilight Zone. Despite the misrepresentation of such therapies in popular media, modern ECT serves as a valuable option for patients with certain severe mental health conditions who have tried other therapies without success. Although ECT is far safer today than it was when the stigma attached to it was formed, it still carries risks such as confusion, memory loss, and some physical side effects. One need not enter another dimension to envision why a plaintiff might claim damages arising from those risks. Much like Rod Serling’s anthology, the Eleventh Circuit recently closed the door on one such episode.

In Thelen v. Somatics, LLC, — F.4th —, 2025 WL 2749888 (11th Cir.), the plaintiff suffered from depression and mental health issues so severe that he attempted to take his life numerous times in numerous ways. During a two-year span, he received 95 ECT treatments to address his conditions. He was later diagnosed with a neurocognitive disorder that caused severe memory loss.

Continue reading “Nothing Shocking Here – Eleventh Circuit Affirms Defense Win in Electroconvulsive Therapy Case”

No Defect, No Negligence: Lessons from Rudzinskas v. Retractable Technologies, Inc.

Share

A recent summary judgment decision out of the Southern District of Georgia illustrates the critical role of defect evidence (or lack thereof) in negligence claims involving medical devices. As the plaintiff in Rudzinskas v. Retractable Technologies, Inc., No. 4:24-cv-009, 2025 WL 22772490 (S.D. Ga. Sep. 29, 2025) recently learned, allegations that a medical device malfunctioned are not sufficient evidence to survive summary judgment on negligent manufacturing and failure to warn claims.

In Rudzinskas, the plaintiff alleged that on two different occasions, when her husband injected her with vitamin B12 at home, the needles shot off their syringes and became dislodged inside her body (first in her buttock, and a few months later, in her arm). Plaintiff asserted that the syringes were marketed as containing needles that automatically retract from a patient into the barrel of the syringe when the plunger handle is fully depressed. Plaintiff sought medical attention following the alleged incidents. Plaintiff’s physicians confirmed the presence of the first needle and attempted to surgically extract it, but the surgery was unsuccessful. After the second incident two months later, the same surgeon attempted to confirm the presence of the second needle, but did not see it and did not perform surgery. Arising from these allegations, the plaintiff asserted two claims against the defendant for (1) negligent manufacture and (2) negligent failure to warn.

Continue reading “No Defect, No Negligence: Lessons from Rudzinskas v. Retractable Technologies, Inc.“

In Case You Missed It – Winter 2024

Share

Catch up on the latest developments of interest for product manufacturers. Here’s a quarterly compilation of the most popular blog posts on Faegre Drinker on Products.

Michigan Repeals Pharma Immunity Provision

By Jacqueline E. McDonnell

Michigan recently signed into law a repeal of the immunity provision under its Product Liability Act, presenting a new litigation risk in Michigan for pharmaceutical companies. The provision had granted near-complete immunity to pharma for the past 30 years, as the only of its kind nationwide. Michigan’s new law — Senate Bill 410 — removes this immunity, leaving intact a rebuttable presumption of nonliability and caps on noneconomic damages.

Pennsylvania Stays in a Minority of Two States in Prohibiting Evidence of Compliance With Government and Industry Standards in Product Liability Design Defect Cases

By David F. Abernethy

Just before Christmas, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court delivered a lump of coal to product liability defendants: Sullivan v. Werner Co., 2023 WL 8859656 (Pa. Dec. 22, 2023), affirming a lower court ruling that barred evidence of a product manufacturer’s compliance with government and industry standards in a strict liability design-defect case. The lower courts held that such evidence goes to due care and is relevant only to negligence, not strict liability. The affirmance appears to support the exclusion of such evidence in design-defect cases based on a risk-utility theory, but leaves uncertainty for the future because only three justices joined the principal opinion; a fourth justice concurred with the result but concluded the record was inadequate to resolve the legal issue, while two others dissented.

EPA’s Final EtO Rule Has Landed: What Now?

By Adrienne Franco Busby

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency recently released their long-awaited final rule regulating ethylene oxide (EtO) emissions from commercial sterilizers. The final rule comes after five years of development, over 1,000 comments, and with estimated compliance costs for industry of up to $900 million.

FDA Publishes New Artificial Intelligence & Medical Products White Paper

Share

On March 15, the United States Food & Drug Administration published a white paper entitled “Artificial Intelligence & Medical Products: How CBER, CDER, CDRH, and OCP are Working Together.” FDA announced the paper by sharing a short letter from Commissioner Califf, where he reaffirmed the Agency’s commitment to “promoting the responsible and ethical development, deployment, use, and maintenance of safe and effective medical products that incorporate or are developed with AI.” The white paper does not contain any new pronouncements of FDA position, but refers to existing guidance and serves as a reinforcement for existing FDA policy regarding AI.

Continue reading “FDA Publishes New Artificial Intelligence & Medical Products White Paper”

California Appellate Court Upholds Federal Preemption of Negligent Undertaking Claim Under the Medical Device Amendments of 1976

Share

Federal preemption can be a very powerful defense.  For example, claims concerning Class III medical devices requiring pre-market approval are generally preempted by the Medical Device Amendments of 1976, 21 U.S.C. § 360c, et seq. (“MDA”).  In Regwan v. Abbott Laboratories, Case No. B319606, 2023 WL 8818748 (Cal. App. 2d Dec. 21, 2023), the California Court of Appeal relied on that principle in holding preempted a negligent failure to warn claim premised on a sales representative’s intraoperative communications and presented as a “negligent undertaking” claim.  This holding continues a California trend that federal law may preempt negligence-based claims regarding Class III PMA medical devices even if they are not presented as traditional design defect or failure to warn claims.

In Regwan, the plaintiff alleged she suffered serious injuries following implantation of a MitraClip that the defendant manufactured.  During the procedure, the saline bag ran dry, causing the plaintiff to allegedly suffer an air embolism and brain injuries.  The plaintiff asserted negligence and products liability causes of action against the defendant after discovering a defendant representative attended the surgery and was allegedly “responsible for the flow of saline.”  The defendant demurred, arguing federal law preempted the plaintiff’s products liability claims.

Continue reading “California Appellate Court Upholds Federal Preemption of Negligent Undertaking Claim Under the Medical Device Amendments of 1976”