Search for: ""Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc." OR "552 U.S. 312"" Results 21 - 40 of 71
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
26 Apr 2011, 10:26 am by Bexis
Medtronic, Inc., 552 U.S. 312 (2008), doesn’t apply to IDE devices, Burgos is OK to that extent.The decision also kicks out a somewhat bizarre claim based on purported improper record-keeping that, while invoking 21 C.F.R. [read post]
26 Feb 2013, 11:37 am by Michelle Yeary
Medtronic, Inc., 552 U.S. 312 (2008) (state law claims that impose requirements “different from or in addition to” FDA’s PMA requirements are preempted). [read post]
17 Feb 2016, 4:30 am
Medtronic, Inc., 552 U.S. 312 (2008), where he held that most tort claims against PMA devices are expressly preempted by a federal statute. [read post]
8 Jan 2010, 5:02 am by Beck, et al.
Medtronic, Inc., 552 U.S. 312 (2008).Not so fast.This amended complaint was essentially a regulatory "dump. [read post]
24 Jan 2012, 12:49 pm by John J. Sullivan
Medtronic, Inc., 552 U.S. 312 (2008), over whether tort claims could be “requirements” within the meaning of the statute. [read post]
3 Aug 2011, 12:00 pm by Bexis
 More recently, the Supreme Court in Riegel v. [read post]
5 May 2010, 6:50 am by Bexis
Medtronic, Inc., 552 U.S. 312, 128 S.Ct. 999, 169 L.Ed.2d 892 (2008) the United States Supreme Court affirmed that the express pre-emption clause in the Medical Device Amendments (MDA) of 1976, 21 U.S.C. [read post]
30 Jun 2015, 6:32 am
Medtronic, Inc., 552 U.S. 312 (2008)) between §510k “substantial equivalence” clearance and premarket approval. [read post]
12 Jan 2015, 12:59 pm
Medtronic, Inc., 552 U.S. 312 (2008), and Wyeth v. [read post]
31 Oct 2013, 5:00 am
Medtronic, Inc., 552 U.S. 312 (2008); finding PMA preemption under Medtronic, Inc. v. [read post]