Garross v. Medtronic, Inc.
District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
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
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
- Medtronic, Inc. v. LohrSupreme Court of the United States · 1996
- Buckman Co. v. Plaintiffs' Legal CommitteeSupreme Court of the United States · 2001
- Bonte v. U.S. Bank, N.A.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2010
- Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2008
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Aaron v. Medtronic, Inc.District Court, S.D. Ohio · 2016
- Angeles v. Medtronic, Inc.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 2015
- Franks v. The Cooper Companies. Inc.District Court, D. Rhode Island · 2024
- Frase, Dewane v. Ashland Chemical Company Division of Ashland, Inc.District Court, W.D. Wisconsin · 2020
- Glover v. Bausch & Lomb, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 2022
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.