February 20, 2009
Posted by on
The NY Times Business section (and the WSJ Health Blog) this morning picked up the story — that we noted last week — that Waxman and Pallone plan to reintroduce legislation essentially reversing the Supreme Court’s ruling in Reigel v. Medtronic. Those stories also note a Senate version to be introduced by Sen. Kennedy and Sen. Leahy.
The basis for the Supreme Court’s decision in Reigel v. Medtronic is the interpretation of the Medical Devices Amendments of 1976, so by enacting changes that specifically disclaim preemption of state tort law, Congress could effectively moot the Supreme Court’s ruling.
However, two state-level developments may change the debate:
- The Wisconsin Supreme Court’s decision this week in Blunt v. Medtronic, which was dictated by Reigel v. Medtronic, may create additional pressure in favor of federal action and maintaining state tort liability (although note that only two of seven justices signed on to the Wisconsin concurring opinion decrying the result); but on the other hand
- The Georgia Senate Economic Development Committee held its first hearing yesterday on legislation protecting Georgia-based businesses or companies with more than 200 employees headquartered out of state from liability for defects in any drug or medical device that has been approved by the FDA. If this initiative is successful, and is replicated in other states, both the Supreme Court’s ruling(s) and the federal legislation would be moot, since there would be no underlying state tort liability.
February 19, 2009
Posted by on
In a 7-0 ruling that it said was dictated by last year’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Reigel v. Medtronic, the Wisconsin Supreme Court dismissed a products liability claim against Medtronic relating to one of its defibrillator models.
Two justices wrote a concurrence (agreeing with the result, but) criticizing the reliance it places on the FDA’s PMA process, citing criticism of that process from within the Agency itself:
It is not at all apparent that the FDA approval process actually guarantees a minimum level of safety for medical devices.
However, the concurring justices are mistaken to rely on the cited concerns. The GAO and “dissident” scientist concerns, as I understand them, were about devices approved through the 510(k) process, not the PMA process, but only PMA-approved devices are exempt from State tort liability under Reigel v. Medtronic. Medtronic v. Lohr specifically denied preemption for 510(k)-approved devices.
That is not to say that as a matter of institutional competence, I believe the FDA is better suited than the courts to assess post-approval device safety. I don’t think we have the data to make that assessment. Certainly if the FDA is expected to competently act as the final arbiter of product safety, it would need more funds, and perhaps revisions to post-approval regulations. Or maybe Waxman will succeed and legislate tort un-reform.
Read our other posts on this topic.