Duncan v. Iolab Corp., s. 92-2620
| Decision Date | 24 January 1994 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 92-2620,92-2801,s. 92-2620 |
| Citation | 12 F.3d 194 |
| Parties | Shirley DUNCAN, William F. Duncan, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. IOLAB CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee. Bessie ROGERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. OPTICAL RADIATION CORP., Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit |
Edward F. Gerace, Tampa, FL, for plaintiff-appellant.
Adele Baker, Wright, Robinson, McCammon, Osthimer & Tatum, Richmond, VA, for Iolab Corp.
John W. Bussey, III, Elizabeth C. Wheeler, Johnson & Bussey, Orlando, FL, for defendant-appellee.
Bruce N. Kuhlik, Covington & Burling, Washington, DC, for amicus Health Industry in both cases.
Brian Wolfman, Public Citizen Litigation Group, Washington, DC, for amicus Public Citizen.
Retta M. Riordan, Health Industry Manufacturers Assoc., Washington, DC, for Health Industry.
Lars Noah, Covington & Burling, Washington, DC, for amicus Health Industry in No. 2620.
Appeal from the United States District Court For the Middle District of Florida.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida.
Before EDMONDSON and BLACK, Circuit Judges, and JOHNSON, Senior Circuit Judge.
In this consolidated products liability action, plaintiffs appeal separate district court orders granting the defendants summary judgment. Plaintiffs both received intraocular lenses in the course of treatment for their cataracts. They filed suit against defendants, manufacturers of the lenses, after plaintiffs suffered injuries allegedly caused by the lenses. The issue is whether section 360k(a) of the Medical Device Amendments of 1976 to the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act of 1938, 21 U.S.C. Secs. 301 et seq., preempts plaintiffs' state law claims for negligence, strict liability in tort, and breach of implied warranty. We follow the Seventh Circuit and conclude that it does. See Slater v. Optical Radiation Corp., 961 F.2d 1330 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. 327, 121 L.Ed.2d 246 (1992).
The judgments of the district courts are AFFIRMED.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Medtronic v. Lohr
...§ 360k required pre-emption of at least some common-law claims brought against the manufacturer of a medical device. See Duncan v. Iolab Corp., 12 F.3d 194 (1994). After reconsidering its ruling in light of Duncan, the District Court reversed its earlier decision and dismissed the Lohrs' en......
-
Mitchell v. Collagen Corp.
...(1st Cir.1994) (finding implied warranty claim preempted for Class III device not subject to PMA process); Duncan v. Iolab Corp., 12 F.3d 194, 195 (11th Cir.1994) (per curiam) (same for intraocular lens); cf. Feldt v. Mentor Corp., 61 F.3d 431, 437 & n. 9 (5th Cir.1995) (holding that implie......
-
Scott v. CIBA Vision Corp.
...(In accord, King v. Collagen Corp., supra, 983 F.2d 1130; Slater v. Optical Radiation Corp., supra, 961 F.2d 1330; Duncan v. Iolab Corp. (11th Cir.1994) 12 F.3d 194; Tarallo v. Searle Pharmaceutical, Inc. (D.S.C.1988) 704 F.Supp. 653, 656 ["... any cause of action based on testing, labeling......
-
Evraets v. Intermedics Intraocular, Inc.
...state law theories of negligence or strict liability. (Gile v. Optical Radiation Corp. (3d Cir.1994) 22 F.3d 540; Duncan v. Iolab Corporation (11th Cir.1994) 12 F.3d 194; Covey v. Surgidev Corp. (N.D.Ohio 1993) 815 F.Supp. 1089; and Hunsaker v. Surgidev Corp. (M.D.Pa.1992) 818 F.Supp. Breac......