Legal Opinion
Clark v. Medtronic, Inc.
District Court, D. Minnesota
Decided August 18, 2008No. 06-CV-4078 (JMR/AJB)PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
JAMES M. ROSENBAUM, District Judge.
Plaintiff, Demetrus Claude Clark, claims defendant, Medtronic, Inc. (“Medtronic”), was negligent in manufacturing and marketing its Model 7278 Maximo implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (“ICD”). Med-tronic moves for summary judgment based on federal preemption. Defendant’s motion is granted.
I. Background 1
A. Federal Premarket Approval Process
ICDs are implantable, silver-dollar size, highly-technical electronic devices -designed to detect, and almost-instantaneously treat, ventricular tachycardia, or fibrillation, a life-threatening condition. A…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Medtronic, Inc. v. LohrSupreme Court of the United States · 1996
- Buckman Co. v. Plaintiffs' Legal CommitteeSupreme Court of the United States · 2001
- Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2008
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Riley v. Cordis Corp.District Court, D. Minnesota · 2009
- Horowitz v. Stryker Corp.District Court, E.D. New York · 2009
- Sherry Walker v. Medtronic, IncorporatedCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2012
- Nicole Weber v. Allergan, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2019
- Funk v. Stryker Corp.District Court, S.D. Texas · 2009
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.