Medical Device Safety Act of 2008

James Sabatini
James Sabatini
Contributor
Posted by James SabatiniJune 29, 2008 1:45 PM

U.S. Reps. Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-NJ), Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health, and Henry A. Waxman (D-CA), Chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, recently introduced legislation in the House that will reverse a U.S. Supreme Court decision earlier this year involving medical devices

In February, the U.S. Supreme Court immunized medical device companies from state lawsuits brought by patients who are injured by certain medical devices. In Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc. the Court found that the product liability claims are barred by a preemption clause included in the Medical Device Amendments of 1976 (MDA). This decision was wrong. It ignored both congressional intent and 30 years of experience in which FDA regulation and tort liability played complementary roles in protecting consumers from device risks.

The Medical Device Safety Act of 2008 protects patients from dangerous and defective devices by correcting the Court’s flawed interpretation of the MDA. The legislation explicitly clarifies that state product liability lawsuits are preserved. People should contact thier elected Congressmen and Senator to voice support of this legislation to ensure that injured people have a right to compensation for injuries caused by dangerous and defective medical devices.

1 Comment

Have an opinion about this post? Please consider leaving a comment or subscribing to the feed to have future articles delivered to your feed reader.

Greg Rodgers
Posted by Greg Rodgers
July 02, 2008 2:56 PM

The problem with letting each state be a source of potential litigation against medical device companies, is that it will provide a disincentive and cost increase in development of devices. Central definition of requirements (a la the FDA) allows companies to focus on regulatory requirements (even so there can be lots including ISO, UL, etc.) and monitor those requirements and assure they are in compliance. If state courts can have law suits independent of the federal system, it means that litigation will increase and perhaps state law will be invoked as a regulatory requirement beyond the FDA requirements. This is not a good thing as it adds complexity and cost to the legal system - the only parties that win in this case are the lawyers. If you believe that the FDA is not regulating adequately, then reform the FDA - don't add 50 parallel legal systems and expect to improve safety and medical benefits. It's just the wrong way to go.

Comments for this article are closed.

Subscribe to InjuryBoard Waterbury

InjuryBoard Waterbury RSS Feeds

Keep up with the latest updates using your favorite RSS reader

Legal Assistance Center

More Info
Better Business Bureau Accredited Business Confidential

Your question will be referred to an attorney near you. If your question is of a legal nature, then by submitting this form you agree you are not forming a formal attorney / client relationship. Read our full privacy policy.

Looking for an InjuryBoard attorney closer to home? Click here.

Subscribe to Blog Updates

Enter your email address if you would like to receive email notifications when comments are made on this post.

Email address