Buckman Company v. Plaintiffs' Legal Committee, 981768

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtRehnquist
Citation121 S.Ct. 1012,148 L.Ed.2d 854,531 U.S. 341
Parties BUCKMAN COMPANY, PETITIONER v. PLAINTIFFS' LEGAL COMMITTEESUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Docket Number981768
Decision Date21 February 2001

531 U.S. 341
121 S.Ct. 1012
148 L.Ed.2d 854

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order that corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press.

BUCKMAN COMPANY, PETITIONER
v.
PLAINTIFFS' LEGAL COMMITTEE

No. 98-1768.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Argued December 4, 2000

Decided February 21, 2001

Syllabus

Respondent represents plaintiffs claiming injuries caused by the use of orthopedic bone screws in the pedicles of their spines. Petitioner assisted the screws' manufacturer in securing approval for the devices from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency), which has regulatory authority under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), as amended by the Medical Devices Amendments of 1976 (MDA). While the screws are in a class that normally must go through a time-consuming process to receive premarket approval (PMA), they were approved under an exception, known as the 510(k) process, for predicate devices-devices that were already on the market when the MDA was enacted-and for devices that are "substantially equivalent" to predicate devices. The 510(k) application filed by petitioner and the manufacturer sought clearance to market the screws for use in arm and leg bones, not the spine. Claiming that the FDA would not have approved the screws had petitioner not made fraudulent representations regarding their intended use, plaintiffs sought damages under state tort law. The District Court dismissed these fraud-on-the-FDA claims on, inter alia, the ground that they were pre-empted by the MDA. The Third Circuit reversed.

Held: The plaintiffs' state-law fraud-on-the-FDA claims conflict with, and are therefore impliedly pre-empted by, the FDCA, as amended by the MDA. Pp. 5-11.

(a) The relationship between a federal agency and the entity it regulates is inherently federal because it originates from, is governed by, and terminates according to federal law. Because petitioner's FDA dealings were prompted by the MDA and the very subject matter of petitioner's statements were dictated by that statute-and in contrast to situations implicating "federalism concerns and the historic primacy of state regulation of [health and safety matters]," Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr, 518 U.S. 470, 485-no presumption against pre-emption obtains in this case. The conflict here stems from the fact that the federal statutory scheme amply empowers the FDA to punish and deter fraud against the Agency, and the Agency uses this authority to achieve a delicate balance of statutory objectives that can be skewed by allowing state-law fraud-on-the-FDA claims. While the 510(k) process lacks the PMA review's rigor, the former does set forth a comprehensive scheme for determining substantial equivalence with a predicate device. Other provisions give the FDA enforcement options that allow it to make a measured response to suspected fraud upon the Agency. This flexibility is a critical component of the framework under which the FDA pursues its difficult (and often competing) objectives of regulating medical device marketing and distribution without intruding upon decisions committed by the FDCA to health care professionals. Pp. 5-8.

(b) State-law fraud-on-the-FDA claims inevitably conflict with the FDA's responsibility to police fraud consistently with the Agency's judgment and objectives. Complying with the FDA's detailed regulatory regime in the shadow of 50 States' tort regimes will dramatically increase the burdens facing potential applicants, who might be deterred from seeking approval of devices with potentially beneficial off-label uses-an accepted medical practice in which a device is used for some other purpose than that for which the FDA approved it-for fear of being exposed to unpredictable civil liability. Conversely, applicants' fear that their disclosures to the FDA will later be judged insufficient in state court might lead them to submit information that the Agency neither needs nor wants, thus delaying the comparatively speedy 510(k) process, and, in turn, impeding competition and delaying the prescription of appropriate off-label uses. Respondent's reliance on Silkwood v. Kerr&nbhyph;McGee Corp., 464 U.S. 238, is misplaced. Silkwood was based on traditional state tort law principles, not on a fraud-on-the-agency theory, and, unlike Silkwood, there is clear evidence here that Congress intended that the MDA be enforced exclusively by the Federal Government. In addition, the MDA's express pre-emption provision does not bar the ordinary working of conflict pre-emption principles. Geier v. American Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S. 861, 869. And although Medtronic can be read to allow certain state-law causes of actions that parallel federal safety requirements, it does not stand for the proposition that any FDCA violation will support a state-law claim. Pp. 8-11. 159 F.3d 817, reversed.

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

Rehnquist, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, JJ., joined. Stevens, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Thomas, J., joined.

Opinion of the Court

Chief Justice Rehnquist delivered the opinion of the Court.

Respondent represents plaintiffs who claim injuries resulting from the use of orthopedic bone screws in the pedicles of their spines. Petitioner is a consulting company that assisted the screws' manufacturer, AcroMed Corporation, in navigating the federal regulatory process for these devices. Plaintiffs say petitioner made fraudulent representations to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) in the course of obtaining approval to market the screws. Plaintiffs further claim that such representations were at least a "but for" cause of injuries that plaintiffs sustained from the implantation of these devices: Had the representations not been made, the FDA would not have approved the devices, and plaintiffs would not have been injured. Plaintiffs sought damages from petitioner under state tort law. We hold that such claims are pre-empted by the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), 52 Stat. 1040, as amended by the Medical Device Amendments of 1976 (MDA), 90 Stat. 539, 21...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1137 practice notes
  • Human drugs and biological products: Prescription drug products; labeling requirements,
    • United States
    • Federal Register January 24, 2006
    • January 24, 2006
    ...F.2d 993 (2d Cir. 1985), Eli Lilly & Co., Inc. v. Marshall, 850 S.W.2d 155 (Tex. 1993), and Buckman Co. v. Plaintiffs' Legal Comm., 531 U.S. 341, 352-53 (2001). FDA believes that State laws conflict with and stand as an obstacle to achievement of the full objectives and purposes of Fede......
  • Part II
    • United States
    • Federal Register January 24, 2006
    • January 24, 2006
    ...F.2d 993 (2d Cir. 1985), Eli Lilly & Co., Inc. v. Marshall, 850 S.W.2d 155 (Tex. 1993), and Buckman Co. v. Plaintiffs' Legal Comm., 531 U.S. 341, 352-53 (2001). FDA believes that State laws conflict with and stand as an obstacle to achievement of the full objectives and purposes of Fede......
  • In re Chrysler-Dodge-Jeep Ecodiesel Mktg., Case No. 17–md–02777–EMC
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Northern District of California
    • March 15, 2018
    ...as they saw fit.’ " Id. at 1040. The Ninth Circuit then acknowledged a Supreme Court case, Buckman Co. v. Plaintiffs' Legal Comm. , 531 U.S. 341, 121 S.Ct. 1012, 148 L.Ed.2d 854 (2001), which also involved a medical device and where conflict preemption was found, but explained that Buckman ......
  • Exela Pharma Scis., LLC v. Sandoz, Inc., CIVIL CASE NO. 1:19-cv-00318-MR
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. Western District of North Carolina
    • September 15, 2020
    ...of statutory objectives" would be "skewed by allowing" a plaintiff to bring state-law claims. Buckman Co. v. Plaintiffs’ Legal Comm., 531 U.S. 341, 348, 121 S.Ct. 1012, 148 L.Ed.2d 854 (2001). In evaluating whether federal law has preempted state law, the Court must look to "the purpose of ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1071 cases
  • In re Pharmaceutical Industry, M.D.L. No. 1456 (D. Mass. 5/13/2003), M.D.L. No. 1456.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 1st Circuit. United States District Courts. 1st Circuit. District of Massachusetts
    • May 13, 2003
    ...of 50 states' tort regimes will dramatically increase the burdens facing regulated entities." Buckman Co. v. Plaintiffs' Legal Comm., 531 U.S. 341, 349-350, 121 S.Ct. 1012, 1018 However, state courts frequently construe terms in federal laws in order to adjudicate causes of action based in ......
  • U.S. v. State , No. 10–16645.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • April 11, 2011
    ...we are guided by the Supreme Court's decisions in Crosby, 530 U.S. 363, 120 S.Ct. 2288, and Buckman Co. v. Plaintiffs' Legal Comm., 531 U.S. 341, 121 S.Ct. 1012, 148 L.Ed.2d 854 (2001). In Crosby, where the Court found that a state law was preempted because it posed an obstacle to Congress'......
  • McConologue v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., Civil Action No. 3:13–CV–00880 VLB.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Connecticut)
    • March 24, 2014
    ...litigants who are authorized to file suit for noncompliance with the medical device provisions.” Buckman Co. v. Plaintiffs' Legal Comm., 531 U.S. 341, 349 n. 4, 121 S.Ct. 1012, 148 L.Ed.2d 854 (2001). See also PDK Labs, Inc. v. Friedlander, 103 F.3d 1105, 1113 (2d Cir.1997) (“no such privat......
  • Gremo v. Bayer Corp., 1:19-cv-13432-NLH-AMD
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey
    • June 29, 2020
    ...223, 275 (Ct. App. Div. 2008), which in turn relies upon a United States Supreme Court case, Buckman Co. v. Plaintiffs’ Legal Committee, 531 U.S. 341, 347, 121 S.Ct. 1012, 148 L.Ed.2d 854 (2001). In Buckman, the plaintiffs alleged that a drug manufacturer made fraudulent representations to ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
8 firm's commentaries
  • Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Based on Implied Preemption
    • United States
    • LexBlog United States
    • October 27, 2022
    ...2d 808, 812 (E.D. La. 2013); Heisner v. Genzyme Corp., 2010 WL 894054 (N.D. Ill. 2010). Heck, in Buckman Co. v. Plaintiffs’ Legal Comm., 531 U.S. 341 (2001), the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiffs’ claims on implied preemption grounds. Thus, as various courts have h......
  • Who Needs a Lawyer in the Eleventh Circuit?
    • United States
    • LexBlog United States
    • August 22, 2022
    ...that are not grounded in traditional state-tort law, that claim was preempted under Buckman Co. v. Plaintiffs Legal Committee, 531 U.S. 341 (2001). 2019 WL 6766574, at *3. The other two new claims were not only preempted, but failed on independent state-law grounds – warranty for lack of pr......
  • Buckman Preempts Claims Despite State’s Adoption of the FDCA as State Law
    • United States
    • LexBlog United States
    • February 24, 2022
    ...Plaintiffs’ Legal Committee, 531 U.S. 341 (2001), stands for the proposition that only the federal government may enforce the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and that any state-law claim that depends on the existence of the FDCA is impliedly preempted by 21 U.S.C. § 337(a), which proclaims tha......
  • Tennessee Trial Court Holds Claims Preempted Notwithstanding Alleged Off-Label Use Of A Medical Device
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • September 2, 2021
    ...in effect "seeking to enforce the FDCA," which, the court recognized, is not permitted under Buckman Co. v. Plaintiff's Legal Committee, 531 U.S. 341, 353 Game, set, match. The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
  • The Perils and Promise of Public Nuisance.
    • United States
    • Yale Law Journal Vol. 132 Nbr. 3, January 2023
    • January 1, 2023
    ...See Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. [section][section] 1346(b), 2671-2680 (2018). (389.) See Buckman Co. v. Plaintiffs' Legal Comm., 531 U.S. 341, 348 (390.) See, e.g., Engstrom & Rabin, supra note 4, at 296; Ausness, supra note 155, at 1163 (noting Purdue's "policy of refusing to se......
  • Regulatory and Enforcement Framework
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library Pharmaceutical Industry Antitrust Handbook. Second Edition
    • December 8, 2018
    ...U.S.C. §§ 371(a) & 337(a). Accordingly, no private cause of action exists to enforce the FDCA. See Buckman Co. v. Plaintiffs’ Legal Comm., 531 U.S. 341, 349 n.4 (2001) (“The FDCA leaves no doubt that it is the Federal Government rather than private litigants who are authorized to file suit ......
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library Pharmaceutical Industry Antitrust Handbook. Second Edition
    • December 8, 2018
    ...Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat, 429 U.S. 477 (1977), 126, 314 Brusewitz v. Wyeth LLC, 562 U.S. 223 (2011), 75 Buckman Co. v. Plaintiffs’ Legal Comm., 531 U.S. 341 (2001), 70 Buspirone Antitrust Litig., In re , No. 01-11401 (S.D.N.Y. 2001), 125 Buspirone Patent Litigation, In re , 185 F. Supp. 2d 363 (S.......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT