Missouri Supreme Court Denies Medtronic’s Petition for Writ of Prohibition in InFuse Case, Parker Waichman LLP Comments

Share Article

In a case involving injuries that include catastrophic, unchecked bone growth in the spinal column following surgical procedures with Medtronic’s bone graft product, InFuse, the Supreme Court of Missouri has denied Medtronic’s petition for writ of prohibition or mandamus. The intermediate Missouri Court of Appeals refused to review the ruling via a writ of mandamus, an action now affirmed by the Supreme Court of the State of Missouri.

News Image
We support the Court’s decision in denying the petition for writ of prohibition,” said Jerrold S. Parker, Founding Partner of Parker Waichman LLP.

According to an Order dated May 26, 2015, a petition for writ of prohibition or mandamus has been denied by the Supreme Court of Missouri: In the Supreme Court of Missouri, May Session, 2015, State ex rel. Medtronic, Inc. and Medtronic Sofamor Danek, USA, Inc., Relators, No. SC94859 PROHIBITION/MANDAMUS, St. Louis City Circuit Court No. 1322-CC10219-02 Eastern District Court of Appeals No. ED102557

The original order denying Medtronic’s preemption claim was penned by Hon. John F. Garvey of the Missouri Circuit Court, sitting in the City of St. Louis. The petition for writ of prohibition, if granted, would have given Medtronic the right to appellate review of Judge Garvey’s decision before any trial on the basis of venue and jurisdiction. The unsuccessful writ of mandamus was filed in relation to a lawsuit filed on behalf of a plaintiff who was surgically implanted with the InFuse Bone Graft and LT Cage medical product.

The plaintiffs are represented by Jerrold S. Parker of Parker Waichman LLP, Richard Arsenault of Neblett Beard & Arsenault, Nicholas Drakulich of The Drakulich Firm, Eric Holland of The Holland Law Firm, Mark Lanier of The Lanier Law Firm, Hezekiah Sistrunk and Jane M. Lamberti of The Cochran Firm, and Mark Geragos of Geragos & Geragos. The case is Dennis Brian Anders, Plaintiffs, et al v. Medtronic, Inc., Medtronic Sofamor Danek USA, Inc., And Does 1 – 100 Defendants, Case No. 4:14cv01637 ERW.

“We support the Court’s decision in denying the petition for writ of prohibition,” said Jerrold S. Parker, Founding Partner of Parker Waichman LLP.

This decision is a significant victory for those individuals who have suffered alleged InFuse injuries, notes Melanie H. Muhlstock, Managing Attorney at the Parker Waichman firm.

It is alleged, according to the lawsuit, that surgical implantation of InFuse caused plaintiffs significant injuries. The plaintiffs also alleged that Medtronic promoted InFuse off-label, or in ways that were not approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

According to Judge Garvey’s original January 13, 2015 decision, the plaintiffs’ claims were not preempted by federal law (Case No. 1322-CC10219-02). Medtronic attempted to have the case dismissed on multiple grounds, all of which were denied. Medtronic’s federal preemption claim was based on an argument that plaintiffs’ causes of action were expressly and impliedly preempted by federal law, specifically the Medical Device Amendment of 1976 (MDA). They were not, wrote the Missouri court, disagreeing with Medtronic and clearing the way for a trial on the merits of plaintiffs’ claims.

If you, or someone you know, suffered a serious complication or injury after receiving Medtronic InFuse, please contact their office by visiting the firm's website at yourlawyer.com. Free case evaluations are also available by calling 1-800-LAW-INFO (1-800-529-4636).

Share article on social media or email:

View article via:

Pdf Print

Contact Author

Gary Falkowitz
Follow us on
Visit website