Legal Opinion
Hawkins v. Medtronic, Inc.
District Court, S.D. Ohio
Decided September 24, 2012No. Case No. 2:11-cv-1037PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
PETER C. ECONOMUS, District Judge.
Plaintiff Christopher Hawkins filed this action claiming that he was injured by a medical device made by Defendant Medtronic, Inc. In his Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that the device, a Medtronic Implantable Pulse Generator, Model # 7425 (hereinafter “IPG”), was defective and had to be replaced due to Defendant’s failure to satisfy its obligations under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended by the Medical Device Amendments of 1976, 21 U.S.C. § 301 et seq. (Am. Compl. ¶ 39.) Plaintiff filed this action…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Ashcroft v. IqbalSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
- 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
- Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2008
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Aaron v. Medtronic, Inc.District Court, S.D. Ohio · 2016
- Waltenburg v. St. Jude Medical, Inc.District Court, W.D. Kentucky · 2014
- Spier v. Coloplast Corp.District Court, E.D. Tennessee · 2015
- Arnold v. CooperSurgical, Inc.District Court, S.D. Ohio · 2023
- Coghill v. Bayer CorporationDistrict Court, E.D. Kentucky · 2020
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.