Is the decision to submit a 510(k) application versus a Premarket Application (PMA) at the sole discretion of a medical device manufacturer? The answer is not always clear to product liability lawyers, judges, and juries. FDA recently published revised guidance on its “Refuse to Accept Policy for 510(k)s” that reinforces and clarifies that the regulatory path may be analyzed multiple times by FDA before it clears a 510(k) device. This clarification underscores the reality that the type of application submitted is largely dictated by the agency, not the applicant. This post discusses some key takeaways from this new guidance before briefly discussing how this guidance may be implicated in medical device litigation.
How demanding is the causation standard in a California failure to warn claim when a learned intermediary testifies that he would have read and incorporated more stringent warnings if they had been available? Is the plaintiff required to show that the stronger warning would have altered the physician’s decision to prescribe the product? Or may the plaintiff establish causation by showing that the physician would have communicated the stronger warnings to the patient and that a prudent person in the patient’s position would have declined the treatment as a result?
The Ninth Circuit isolated this undefined causation standard in Himes v. Somatics, LLC, and certified the question to the California Supreme Court. After confirming that the learned intermediary doctrine is alive and well in California and that a failure to warn claim cannot survive when the learned intermediary does not read the warnings at all, the Ninth Circuit stopped short of defining the causation standard that applies when a learned intermediary does read the warnings.
FDA recently issued final guidance regarding the initiation of voluntary product recalls and its related suggestions on how to be “recall ready.” The guidance – covering voluntary recalls of food, drugs, devices, biological products, cosmetics, and tobacco – emphasizes the importance of a company’s recall readiness at all stages of a product’s distribution chain and provides companies with suggested measures to prepare for and implement voluntary recalls. It also advises companies on best practices for working with FDA to initiate a timely voluntary recall.
Centralization of claims in multidistrict litigation has become the new normal—so much so, that MDL proceedings now comprise more than 50 percent of the federal civil caseload. But has MDL practice in the United States peaked? Only time will tell. While the total number of MDL cases remains high (424,720 cases as of mid-February), the vast majority of these cases are concentrated in just a few of the more crowded MDL dockets. And as the annual MDL statistics in recent years show, the total number of new MDL petitions submitted, and granted, has been in decline. In 2021, for example, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation received 33 total MDL petitions, granting only 19—compared with 44 petitions (26 granted) the year before.
By the time the COVID-19 pandemic began, society was well into the so-called “Digital Age,” relying heavily on electronic communications, apps, websites, and the like to go about daily activities. Everything from ordering food to taking the bus to work could be achieved and tracked through a simple app. During the pandemic, the reliance on electronic mediums went from preferable to necessary, as many businesses shut down and transitioned to a remote or online-only presence.
The escalation of the digital age has led some manufacturers to consider electronic warnings for their products, through the manufacturer’s website, by providing a QR code, or by recommending (or requiring) the consumer to download an app. Even the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) has bought into digital warnings. ANSI’s Z535 standards provide guidance for product manufacturers related to the size, content, and location of warnings. Recently, ANSI created a subcommittee on warnings in electronic media and is in the process of developing a new standard, ANSI Z535.7, for safety information in electronic media. This new standard is expected to be published by December 2022. The FDA has also recently utilized electronic means to communicate information regarding the COVID-19 vaccines. In October 2021, the FDA published three Consumer Fact Sheets for the three currently authorized vaccines on its website and included a QR Code linked to the “most recent” COVID-19 Vaccine Fact Sheets.
We know the plaintiffs’ bar’s feelings about the FDA’s 510(k) clearance process. They tell the jury and the court it is antiquated. They say it does not constitute a finding of safety or efficacy. They do all they can to paint the FDA’s regulatory clearance process as meaningless and not worthy of consideration by a judge or jury. Such arguments may have some vitality in some jurisdictions. But, as we learned twice again in the last month, not in Arizona.
Back in 2012, the Arizona legislature passed a law stating that a manufacturer may not be held liable for exemplary or punitive damages if “[t]he product alleged to have caused the harm was designed, manufactured, packaged, labeled, sold or represented . . . according to the terms of an approval, conditional approval, clearance, license or similar determination of a government agency.” A.R.S. § 12-689(A)(1). The statute broadly defined “manufacturer” to include those engaged in designing, manufacturing, or formulating a product. A.R.S. § 12-689(D)(3). And it further defined “government agency” to mean any federal or Arizona agency with authority “to issue rules, regulations, orders or standards concerning the design, manufacture, packaging, labeling or advertising of a product[.]” A.R.S. § 12-689(D)(2).