Coleman v. Medtronic, Inc.
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
KRIEGLER, J.
Plaintiff and appellant John Coleman sued defendants and respondents Medtronic, Inc., and Medtronic Sofamor Danek USA, Inc. (collectively, Medtronic), alleging he suffered painful complications after a spinal surgery in which Infuse, Medtronic’s federally approved bone fusion medical device, was used in an “off-label” manner. Coleman’s seven causes of action are generally based upon allegations that Medtronic defectively manufactured Infuse, promoted off-label uses of Infuse without adequately warning of the associated risks, and failed to take available steps to warn…
2Cases cited38 opinions
- 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
- Quelimane Co. v. Stewart Title Guaranty Co.California Supreme Court · 1998
- Bausch v. Stryker Corp.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2010
33 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by36 opinions
- Beavers-Gabriel v. Medtronic, Inc.District Court, D. Hawaii · 2014
- Glover v. Bausch & Lomb, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2021
- Bank of New York Mellon v. Citibank, N.A.California Court of Appeal · 2017
- Eidson v. Medtronic, Inc.District Court, N.D. California · 2014
- Blankenship v. Medtronic, Inc.District Court, E.D. Missouri · 2014
31 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.