Kemp v. Medtronics
| Decision Date | 03 May 2000 |
| Docket Number | No. 99-3720,99-3720 |
| Citation | 231 F.3d 216 |
| Parties | (6th Cir. 2000) Elizabeth and Clifford Kemp, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Medtronic, Inc., Defendant-Appellee. Argued: |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio at Cincinnati. No. 97-00103--Sandra S. Beckwith, District Judge. [Copyrighted Material Omitted] Gregory M. Utter, Louis Francis Gilligan, KEATING, MUETHING & KLEKAMP, Cincinnati, Ohio, for Appellants.
Thomas M. Parker, Sanjay K. Varma, ROETZEL & ANDRESS, Akron, Ohio, Karen A. Carroll, ROETZEL & ANDRESS, Cincinnati, Ohio, for Appellee.
Before: MOORE and GILMAN, Circuit Judges; McKEAGUE, District Judge*.
McKEAGUE, D. J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which GILMAN, J., joined. MOORE, J. (pp. 237-38), delivered a separate concurring opinion.
This appeal requires us to determine whether the Medical Device Amendments of 1976 ("MDA"), 21 U.S.C. §§ 360c et seq., to the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. §§301 et seq., preempt plaintiffs' common law and products liability tort claims alleging negligence per se, fraud on the Food and Drug Administration ("FDA"), and failure to warn under Ohio law. The district court found plaintiffs' claims were either preempted by the MDA or failed to present a genuine issue of material fact, and awarded summary judgment to defendant-appellee Medtronic, Inc. ("Medtronic"). For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
In late December 1991, plaintiff Elizabeth Kemp was admitted to the Bethesda North Hospital Emergency Room complaining of profound dizziness, weakness, and malaise. Cardiac testing revealed complete atrioventricular block. In order to regulate Mrs. Kemp's heartbeat, on January 2, 1992, doctors surgically implanted a Model 4004M pacemaker and lead, manufactured by defendant Medtronic, Inc.
More than three years later, in June 1995, Mrs. Kemp began experiencing recurrent dizziness and fainting spells, attributable to the failure of her Model 4004M pacemaker lead to properly regulate her heartbeat. Then, on June 4, 1995, Mrs. Kemp fainted while in the garage of her home and fell to the concrete floor. As a result of her fall, she hit her head, and awoke suffering headaches, facial pain, and neck pain. It was later determined that these symptoms were caused by bilateral subdural hematomas. These blood clots required surgery to relieve the pressure in Mrs. Kemp's skull, and even after surgery she continued to experience loss of sight, speech, and cognitive and motor capability. Consequently, Mrs. Kemp spent some three months in and out of hospitals and rehabilitation, and she continues to suffer related disorders resulting from the injuries sustained in her fall.
At the center of this dispute is Medtronic's Model 4004M pacemaker lead, the device implanted in Mrs. Kemp. A pacemaker lead is a medical device, used in conjunction with a pulse generator (commonly referred to as a pacemaker), that is designed to monitor and correct rhythm irregularities in the human heart. Before a new pacemaker lead may be marketed and sold to the public, the manufacturer must first receive one of various forms of governmental clearance from the FDA. In 1982, the FDA granted Medtronic an investigational device exemption from the premarket approval ("PMA") process to permit clinical trials of the Model 4003, a predecessor to the Model 4004M. Following clinical trials, Medtronic submitted the Model 4003 to the FDA for a complete PMA review. After the FDA accepted, reviewed, and evaluated the PMA application, it was referred to a panel of experts. The panel specifically compared the performance of silicone and polyurethane as insulating materials and concluded that both options should be available to physicians. The Model 4003 ultimately received PMA approval from the FDA on July 29, 1986.
Two years later, on July 18, 1988, Medtronic submitted a PMA Supplement to the FDA for the Model 4004, which proposed several significant modifications to the Model4003. In addition to the Model 4003 specifications already approved by the FDA, the Model 4004 PMA Supplement addressed, among others, modifications incorporating the use of insulation made of pellethane 80A polyurethane.
On October 31, 1989, Medtronic filed a PMA Supplement application for the Model 4004M lead. A bipolar lead like the Model 4004M pacemaker lead consists of an inner conductor coil, outer conductor coil, inner insulation, and outer insulation. Should the inner insulation fail, the lead may short circuit, and fail to sense the heartbeat. If such a failure occurs, then the pacemaker cannot regulate the heartbeat properly, and arrhythmia or arrest may result. Medtronic manufactured the Model 4004M using pellethane 2326-80A as inner insulation material, and designed the 4004M lead to have inner and outer conductor coils with a platinum sputter barrier coating. Medtronic represented that the addition of the platinum sputter better prevented the coils from metal-ion oxidation, a degradative process observed in earlier pacemaker models employing polyurethane insulation (such as pellethane). In its 4004M PMA Supplement, Medtronic represented that the platinum sputter functioned as a barrier between the pellethane insulation and bodily fluids, preventing direct contact and avoiding metal-ion oxidation. The addition of this platinum sputter coating constituted a manufacturing and design change necessitating the filing of a PMA Supplement with the FDA.
The FDA approved the Model 4004M PMA Supplement on March 28, 1990. Thereafter, however, an FDA inspection revealed a significant risk of failure for the 4004M lead due to degradation of the polyurethane insulating material, and in October 1993, Medtronic issued a Health and Safety Alert recalling some 74,000 Model 4004M leads.
On January 24, 1997, Elizabeth Kemp and her husband Clifford sued Medtronic, alleging ten common law and statutory products liability tort claims under Ohio law. Moving for summary judgment, Medtronic argued all of plaintiffs' state law claims were preempted by the express preemption provision of the MDA, § 360k. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio largely agreed, finding the MDA preempted plaintiffs' strict products liability claims for defective design, failure to warn, and nonconformance to representations, as well as their claims for negligent design, negligent failure to warn, breach of express and implied warranties, and fraudulent misrepresentation with respect to medical devices approved through the FDA's premarket approval process. The district court did not find that the MDA totally preempted plaintiffs' claims, however, and ruled that any claims alleging the Model 4004M deviated from FDA specifications were not preempted. The district court then permitted plaintiffs to file an amended complaint to that effect.
Accordingly, on January 19, 1999, plaintiffs filed an eight-count amended complaint. Count I of the amended complaint alleges negligence per se for Medtronic's failure to manufacture the Model 4004M in accordance with the FDA standards and requirements imposed by the Model 4004M PMA Supplement. Count II alleges negligence per se for Medtronic's failure to (1) submit an engineering change order that varied the thickness and coverage of the platinum sputter coating; (2) provide Solution A test results to the FDA; and (3) provide canine biostability test results to the FDA as required by representations in the PMA Supplement. Counts III-VII allege claims that arise in the event Medtronic manufactured a product different from that approved by the FDA. Finally, Count VIII presents a derivative claim for loss of consortium on behalf of plaintiff Clifford Kemp, which is entirely dependent upon his wife's claims.
On January 22, 1999, Medtronic moved for judgment on the pleadings on all counts of the amended complaint except Count I, arguing that plaintiffs' claims were preempted pursuant to the analysis in the district court's January 12, 1999 order. In a separate motion filed that same day, Medtronic moved for a judicial determination of the "specific federal requirements" applicable to the Model 4004M. Ruling from the bench at a pretrial hearing, the district court granted Medtronic's motion for judgment on the pleadings on Counts II, IV, V, VI, and VII of plaintiffs' amended complaint. The district court also granted Medtronic's motion for judgment on the pleadings on Count III of the amended complaint, except to the extent that it could be read to assert a claim for strict liability for a manufacturing defect.
Addressing Medtronic's motion to determine the specific requirements applicable to the Model 4004M, the district court reviewed the Model 4004M PMA Supplement and determined that the FDA approval process established six specific requirements. In determining the sixth requirement, the district court ruled:
The sixth requirement is that there must be a protective barrier coat between the conductor coil and the insulation, which is composed of platinum sputtering. And that appears at Pages VI-52 and VI-61.
There are other specifications within the PMA Supplement. I don't think they are relevant because for the most part they relate to the electrodes and the type of steroid to be emitted and things which are not at issue in this case.
I would note that Paragraphs 57 through 60 of the amended complaint allege that platinum sputtering must be consistent. And the plaintiffs allege this requirement on the basis of Medtronic's description of the coil winding process and the post winding examination of the wires. But I do not see this as being a design specification.
There are also allegations in Paragraph 135...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Aaron v. Medtronic, Inc.
...; Schouest v. Medtronic, Inc., 13 F.Supp.3d 692, 707 (S.D.Tex.2014) ; Angeles, 863 N.W.2d at 420.4 Accord, e.g., Kemp v. Medtronic, Inc., 231 F.3d 216, 219 (6th Cir.2000) ; Martin v. Medtronic, Inc., 32 F.Supp.3d 1026, 1044 (D.Ariz.2014) ; Houston, 957 F.Supp.2d at 1177 ; Kashani–Matts v. M......
-
Blunt v. Medtronic, Inc.
...Brooks v. Howmedica, Inc., 273 F.3d 785 (8th Cir.2001); Martin v. Medtronic, Inc., 254 F.3d 573 (5th Cir.2001); Kemp v. Medtronic, Inc., 231 F.3d 216 (6th Cir.2000); Mitchell v. Collagen Corp., 126 F.3d 902 (7th Cir.1997). An opinion of the Eleventh Circuit was the lone exception. See Goodl......
-
McLaughlin v. Bayer Corp.
...Corp., 376 F.3d 163, 174 (3d Cir.2004) (citing Mitchell v. Collagen Corp., 126 F.3d 902, 911–12 (7th Cir.1997) ; Kemp v. Medtronic, 231 F.3d 216, 230 (6th Cir.2000) ; and Martin v. Medtronic, 254 F.3d 573, 581–83 (5th Cir.2001) ). The express preemption provision “does not[, however,] preve......
-
Guckin v. Nagle
...not preempt state common law claim of negligence against the manufacturer of an allegedly defective medical device); Kemp v. Medtronic, Inc., 231 F.3d 216 (6th Cir.2000) (exploring preemption in the context of a Class III medical device); Berish v. Richards Med. Co., 937 F.Supp. 181, 185 (N......
-
CHAPTER § 9.05 Preemption
...21 U.S.C. § 360e(b)(1)(B); 21 U.S.C. § 360(k).[382] See 21 U.S.C. § 360j(a); 21 C.F.R. § 812-813; Kemp v. Medtronic, Inc., 231 F.3d 216, 222 (6th Cir. 2000).[383] Goodlin, 167 F.3d at 1370 (citing 21 C.F.R. § 812.30(b)(4)).[384] Lohr, 518 U.S. at 476-77.[385] 21 U.S.C. § 360c(a)(2)(C).[386]......
-
The 10,000 pound gorilla: federal preemption in class III medical device cases.
...information. This would be equivalent to a state regulation imposing specific label requirements." (31) In Kemp v. Medtronic, Inc., 231 F.3d 216, 226-27 (6th Cir. 2000), the Sixth Circuit found plaintiff's product liability claims were preempted because "PMA approval by the FDA constitutes ......