Legal Opinion
Robert Perez v. Nidek Co., Ltd.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided March 25, 2013No. 10-55577PublishedCited by 113 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
McKEOWN, Circuit Judge:
We are asked to decide whether patients who suffered no injuries but who were subject to the off-label use of a medical device for eye surgeries may bring suit solely because the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) status of the device was not disclosed to them. The Third Amended Complaint (“the Complaint”) does not state a claim under the California Protection of Human Subjects in Medical Experimentation Act (“the Human Subjects Act”) because the surgeries were not “medical experiments” subject to the protection of the Act. Robert Perez does not have standing…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Ashcroft v. IqbalSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
- Lujan v. Defenders of WildlifeSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- City of Los Angeles v. LyonsSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Medtronic, Inc. v. LohrSupreme Court of the United States · 1996
- Buckman Co. v. Plaintiffs' Legal CommitteeSupreme Court of the United States · 2001
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by113 opinions
- Alex Berezovsky v. Bank of AmericaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2017
- Tamara Moore v. Mars Petcare US, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2020
- In re Carrier IQ, Inc.District Court, N.D. California · 2015
- Dumont v. Reily Foods Co.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2019
- In re Chrysler-Dodge-Jeep Ecodiesel Mktg.District Court, N.D. California · 2018
108 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.