Legal Opinion

Garross v. Medtronic, Inc.

District Court, E.D. Wisconsin

Decided January 21, 2015No. Case No. 14-cv-0134PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

DECISION AND ORDER

LYNN ADELMAN, District Judge.

Plaintiff, Kathlene Penich Garross, brings this diversity suit against defendants (collectively “Medtronic”) alleging numerous tort claims stemming from her spinal surgery. Specifically, plaintiff alleges that Medtronic violated state law by promoting an off-label use of a Class III medical device regulated by the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”). Medtronic moves to dismiss the complaint on several grounds primarily that plaintiffs claims are expressly and impliedly preempted by federal law.

I. Background

The Medical Device Amendments of 1976…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
  2. Medtronic, Inc. v. LohrSupreme Court of the United States · 1996
  3. Buckman Co. v. Plaintiffs' Legal CommitteeSupreme Court of the United States · 2001
  4. Bonte v. U.S. Bank, N.A.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2010
  5. Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2008

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

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Aaron v. Medtronic, Inc.District Court, S.D. Ohio · 2016
  2. Angeles v. Medtronic, Inc.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 2015
  3. Franks v. The Cooper Companies. Inc.District Court, D. Rhode Island · 2024
  4. Frase, Dewane v. Ashland Chemical Company Division of Ashland, Inc.District Court, W.D. Wisconsin · 2020
  5. Glover v. Bausch & Lomb, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 2022

4 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