Injury Lawyer Comments on Preemption Ruling Concerning Medtronic Infuse Bone Graft Lawsuit

d’Oliveira & Associates applauds the recent ruling on Medtronic’s motion to dismiss. The law firm works with some of the more experienced Infuse Bone Graft lawyers and there are no legal fees unless a settlement or award is obtained.

  • Share on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on LinkedInEmail a friend
New Regulations on Medtronic Infuse Bone Graft would require more Disclosures

Medtronic Infuse Bone Graft Infographic from d'Oliveira & Associates

(PRWEB) October 09, 2013

Injury Lawyer Comments on Preemption Ruling Concerning Medtronic Infuse Bone Graft Lawsuit

d’Oliveira & Associates applauds the recent ruling on Medtronic’s motion to dismiss. The law firm works with some of the more experienced Infuse Bone Graft lawyers and there are no legal fees unless a settlement or award is obtained.

On August 21, 2013, Judge G. Murray Snow of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona ruled on a motion to dismiss in the case of Ramirez v. Medtronic (Case 2:13-cv-00512-GMS). Cristina Ramirez filed a lawsuit after she was implanted with the Infuse Bone Graft and subsequently experienced severe pain caused by uncontrolled bone growth. The device was inserted using an off-label posterior approach. She now alleges that Medtronic promoted the Infuse Bone Graft for use off-label. She alleges that the company promoted these off-label uses through journals, media, sales representatives, and by paying leading physicians (i).

The primary argument that the company advanced was that state tort claims were preempted by federal law. However, the court found that most of the infuse bone graft lawsuit claims were not preempted by federal law. The court found that, “While permitting health care providers to use devices in ways other than those anticipated by the FDA, the FDA prohibits device manufacturers from promoting the off-label use of their product. By engaging in off-label promotion, the manufacturer may misbrand a device.” The court further reasoned that “But when Medtronic allegedly violated federal law by engaging in off-label promotion that damaged the Plaintiff and thereby misbranded the Infuse device, it departed the realm of federal regulation and returned to the area of traditional state law remedies.” Therefore, the claims of design defect, failure to warn, fraud, and misrepresentation were not preempted (i).

Attorney Paul d’Oliveira stated, “This ruling provides hope for the numerous people who have suffered due to off-label use of the Infuse Bone Graft. In my opinion, the motion to dismiss was an attempt to prevent Cristina Ramirez from seeking a remedy on both the federal and state level, which would almost completely deny her any opportunity to obtain justice. Companies should not be able to insulate themselves from liability by denying injured people the opportunity to prove their case in either federal or state court. Access to the courts is fundamental to justice.”

People who have been injured by the Infuse Bone Graft, should talk to an attorney about their legal options. d’Oliveira & Associates has been looking into the safety of medical devices such as the Medtronic Infuse Bone Graft. The law firm works with some of the more experienced Medtronic lawyers and there are no legal fees until a settlement or award is obtained. Contact the firm by calling 1-800-992-6878 or submit a contact form online.

(i) Ramirez v. Medtronic Case 2:13-cv-00512-GMS.
law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/arizona/azdce/2:2013cv00512/765161/51/