Facing allegations that it improperly promoted its Infuse spinal fusion device for off-label uses, Medtronic Inc. has fended off lawsuits by relying on a 2008 U.S. Supreme Court case that disallows most state law tort claims arising from a medical device when the government has approved the device. That case, Riegel v. Medtronic, cropped up again on Tuesday, when a federal appeals court agreed that a Vermont woman’s Infuse case should be tossed.

Siding with Medtronic’s lawyer, Mayer Brown’s Andrew Tauber, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld the dismissal of negligence and failure to warn claims brought against the medical device maker. The Second Circuit ruled that some of the claims of plaintiff Koleen Otis-Wisher were pre-empted under the Medical Device Amendments to the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetics Act.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]