Bass v. Stryker Corp. presents a highly technical analysis of whether state law claims about a hip implant are preempted by the federal Medical Device Amendments to the Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act. No. 11-10076 (Jan. 31, 2012) The Court found that the manufacturing claims could proceed as “parallel claims that do not impose different or additional requirements than the FDA regulations,” and that certain implied warranty claims survived because they were based on violations of federal requirements. Op. at 19, 23. The Court affirmed the dismissal on preemption grounds of other claims, including an alleged failure to warn. The opinion provides a thorough example of how Twombly applies to a Rule 12 motion based on preemption.
Recent Related Posts