Conklin Et Ux v. Medtronic Inc
Arizona Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
JUSTICE PELANDER, opinion of the Court:
¶ 1 The issue here is whether federal law preempts an Arizona common law failure-to-warn claim based on a medical device manufacturer's failure to submit adverse event reports to the United States Food and Drug Administration ("FDA"). We hold that the claim is impliedly preempted.
I
¶ 2 After injuring his hip years ago, Raymond R. Conklin, II experienced chronic pain. In 2008, a physician surgically implanted a Medtronic SynchroMed II 40 ml infusion pump and catheter ("Pain Pump") into Conklin to manage pain. Medtronic, Inc. and Medtronic Sofamor Danek…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- 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
- Johnny C. McClain v. Metabolife International, IncCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2005
- In Re Medtronic, Inc., Sprint Fidelis LeadsCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2010
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Dashi v. Nissan N. Am., Inc.Court of Appeals of Arizona · 2019
- McNeil-Williams v. DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc.District Court, E.D. North Carolina · 2019
- Bayer Corporation v. Rene LeachIndiana Court of Appeals · 2020
- Eiter v. Wright Medical Technology IncorporatedDistrict Court, D. Arizona · 2022
- Glover v. Bausch & Lomb, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 2022
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.