Legal Opinion

Conklin Et Ux v. Medtronic Inc

Arizona Supreme Court

Decided December 18, 2018No. CV-17-0322-PRPublishedCited by 15 opinions

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

  1. Medtronic, Inc. v. LohrSupreme Court of the United States · 1996
  2. Buckman Co. v. Plaintiffs' Legal CommitteeSupreme Court of the United States · 2001
  3. Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2008
  4. Johnny C. McClain v. Metabolife International, IncCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2005
  5. 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

  1. Dashi v. Nissan N. Am., Inc.Court of Appeals of Arizona · 2019
  2. McNeil-Williams v. DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc.District Court, E.D. North Carolina · 2019
  3. Bayer Corporation v. Rene LeachIndiana Court of Appeals · 2020
  4. Eiter v. Wright Medical Technology IncorporatedDistrict Court, D. Arizona · 2022
  5. Glover v. Bausch & Lomb, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 2022

10 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