Legal Opinion

Coleman v. Medtronic, Inc.

California Court of Appeal

Decided January 27, 2014No. B243609PublishedCited by 36 opinions

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

  1. Medtronic, Inc. v. LohrSupreme Court of the United States · 1996
  2. Buckman Co. v. Plaintiffs' Legal CommitteeSupreme Court of the United States · 2001
  3. Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2008
  4. Quelimane Co. v. Stewart Title Guaranty Co.California Supreme Court · 1998
  5. 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

  1. Beavers-Gabriel v. Medtronic, Inc.District Court, D. Hawaii · 2014
  2. Glover v. Bausch & Lomb, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2021
  3. Bank of New York Mellon v. Citibank, N.A.California Court of Appeal · 2017
  4. Eidson v. Medtronic, Inc.District Court, N.D. California · 2014
  5. Blankenship v. Medtronic, Inc.District Court, E.D. Missouri · 2014

31 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API